The Use of Lethal Force by Military Forces on Law Enforcement Operations — is There a ‘Lawful Authority’?

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob McLaughlin
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Military Forces

The Use of Lethal Force by Military Forces on Law Enforcement Operations — is There a ‘Lawful Authority’?

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob McLaughlin
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Difficult Situation ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Military Forces ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
The Law ◽  
Commander In Chief ◽  
Peace Officer

Now a person, whether a magistrate, or a peace-officer, who has the duty of suppressing a riot, is placed in a very difficult situation, for if, by his acts, he causes death, he is liable to be indicted for murder or manslaughter, and if he does not act, he is liable to an indictment on an information for neglect; he is, therefore, bound to hit the precise line of his duty: and how difficult it is to hit that precise line, will be a matter for your consideration, but that, difficult as it may be, he is bound to do. R v Pinney (1832) 5 Car & P [254], [270] (Littledale J). A soldier is bound to obey any lawful order which he receives from his military superior. But a soldier cannot any more than a civilian avoid responsibility for breach of the law by pleading that he broke the law in bona fide obedience to the orders (say) of the commander-in-chief. Hence the position of a soldier is in theory and may be in practice a difficult one. He may, as it has been well said, be liable to be shot by a court-martial if he disobeys an order, and to be hanged by a judge and jury if he obeys it. A V Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of Constitution (10th ed, 1959) 303.

Taser and Taser Associated Injuries: A Case Series

2008 ◽  
Vol 74 (9) ◽  
pp. 862-865 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry E. Mangus ◽  
Luke Y. Shen ◽  
Stephen D. Helmer ◽  
Janae Maher ◽  
R. Stephen Smith
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Head Injuries ◽  
Skull Fracture ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Neuromuscular Control ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Risk Of Injury ◽  
Epidural Hemorrhage ◽  
Trauma Surgeons

Taser devices were introduced in 1974 and are increasingly used by law enforcement agencies. Taser use theoretically reduces the risk of injury and death by decreasing the use of lethal force. We report a spectrum of injuries sustained by four patients subdued with Taser devices. Injuries identified in our review included: 1) a basilar skull fracture, right subarachnoid hemorrhage, and left-sided epidural hemorrhage necessitating craniotomy; 2) a concussion, facial laceration, comminuted nasal fracture, and orbital floor fracture; 3) penetration of the outer table and cortex of the cranium by a Taser probe with seizure-like activity reported by the officer when the Taser was activated; and 4) a forehead hematoma and laceration. The Taser operator's manual states that these devices are designed to incapacitate a target from a safe distance without causing death or permanent injury. However, individuals may be exposed to the potential for significant injury. These devices represent a new mechanism for potential injury. Trauma surgeons and law enforcement agencies should be aware of the potential danger of significant head injuries as a result of loss of neuromuscular control.

Is intelligence associated with mortality from lethal force by law enforcement?

Intelligence ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 30-35
Author(s):  
Adam C. Alexander ◽  
Weiyu Chen ◽  
Kenneth D. Ward
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Lethal Force

scholarly journals Measuring Lethal Force Performance in the Lab: The Effects of Simulator Realism and Participant Experience

2020 ◽  
pp. 001872082091697
Author(s):  
Kara J. Blacker ◽  
Kyle A. Pettijohn ◽  
Grant Roush ◽  
Adam T. Biggs
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Video Game ◽  
Signal Detection Theory ◽  
Independent Components ◽  
Hit Rate ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Participant Experience ◽  
Training And Research ◽  
The Military

Objective The goal of the current study was to compare two types of shooting simulators to determine which is best suited for assessing different aspects of lethal force performance. Background Military and law enforcement personnel are often required to make decisions regarding the use of lethal force. A critical goal of both training and research endeavors surrounding lethal force is to find ways to simulate lethal force encounters to better understand behavior in those scenarios. Method Participants of varying degrees of experience completed both marksmanship and shoot/don’t shoot scenarios on both a video game and a military-grade shooting simulator. Using signal detection theory, we assessed sensitivity as a measure of lethal force performance overall. We used hit rate to assess shooting accuracy and false alarm rate to assess decision making. Results Results demonstrated that performance was correlated across simulators. Results supported the notion that shooting accuracy and decision making are independent components of performance. Individuals with firearms expertise outperformed novices on the military-grade simulator, but only with respect to shooting accuracy, not unintended casualties. Individuals with video game experience outperformed novices in the video game simulator, but again only on shooting accuracy. Conclusion Experience played a crucial role in the assessment of shooting accuracy on a given simulator platform; decision-making performance remained unaffected by experience level or type of simulator. Application We recommend that in expert populations or when assessing shooting accuracy, a military-grade shooting simulator be used. However, with a novice population and/or when interested in decision making in lethal force, a video game simulator is appropriate.

scholarly journals Racial disparity in police killings : an analysis of 2014 United States lethal force data

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Michael Laughlin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Racial Disparity ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Police Data ◽  
Micro Level ◽  
Force Data ◽  
The U.S

The main purpose of this research is to create a reliable database concerning law enforcement use of lethal force and employ this database to evaluate whether evidence exists that the decision to use lethal force is impacted by micro-level (officer) race-based considerations. A new database of all lethal force incidents in the U.S. in 2014 was created using 2014: Killed by Police Data and several other websites: 2014: Intentional Lethal Force Data (Menifield and Laughlin, 2018). African American victims were overrepresented and Caucasian victims were underrepresented in police officers' use of lethal force. However, this database and analysis provide no evidence of micro-level discriminatory decision making in the deployment of lethal force by law enforcement. Further, findings do not support the argument that the decision to use lethal force by law enforcement in the U.S. is influenced by race. This research calls into question a number of prevoiusly held assumptions when exploring racially disparate outcomes in lethal force; i.e. these data show greater support for factors external to law enforcement (as opposed to internal) as contributors to disparate outcomes, and questions whether population proportion should be the comparison point for law enforcement use of lethal force.

scholarly journals Deaths Due to Use of Lethal Force by Law Enforcement

2016 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. S173-S187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah DeGue ◽  
Katherine A. Fowler ◽  
Cynthia Calkins
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Lethal Force

scholarly journals Lay evaluations of police and civilian use of force: Action severity scales

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley D. Celestin ◽  
John K. Kruschke
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Bayesian Methods ◽  
Entire Range ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Force Action ◽  
Perceived Severity ◽  
Physical Magnitude ◽  
Lay Perceptions ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Enforcement Policies

In modern societies, citizens cede the legitimate use of violence to law enforcement agents who act on their behalf.However, little is known about the extent to which lay evaluations of forceful actions align with or diverge from official use-of-force policies and heuristics that officers use to choose appropriate levels of responsive force.Moreover, it is impossible to accurately compare official policies and lay intuitions without first measuring the perceived severity of a set of representative actions.To map these psychometric scale values precisely, we presented participants with minimal vignettes describing officer and civilian actions that span the entire range of force options (from polite dialogue to lethal force), and asked them to rate physical magnitude and moral appropriateness.We used Bayesian methods to model the ratings as functions of simultaneously estimated scale values of the actions.Results indicated that the perceived severity of actions across all physical but non-lethal categories clustered tightly together, while actions at the extreme levels were relatively spread out.Moreover, less normative officer actions were perceived as especially morally severe.Broadly, our findings reveal divergence between lay perceptions of force severity and official law enforcement policies, and they imply that the groundwork for disagreement about the legitimacy of police and civilian actions may be partially rooted in the differential way that action severity is perceived by law enforcement relative to civilian observers.

Fighting by other Means in the Mideast: A Critical Analysis of Israel's Assassination Policy

2003 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 350-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Gross
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Just War ◽  
International Community ◽  
Peace Negotiations ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Palestinian Society

Israel's efforts to quell violence during the recent conflict with the Palestinians include targeted assassinations of militia leaders. The international community permits the use of lethal force in only two cases, law enforcement and just war, and assassination cannot be justified in either. In the context of law enforcement, assassination remains prohibited as a form of extra-legal execution, regardless of Israel's status as an occupying power. In the context of just war, assassination violates the proscription against perfidious and treacherous means of warfare. In the current conflict, assassination cannot be accomplished without collaborators, a practice that not only is prohibited by convention but seriously undermines Palestinian society. As a result, assassination provokes violent retaliation and corrodes the basis necessary to renew peace negotiations. Nevertheless, assassination may be defensible as a last resort in some cases. These include tyrannicide, killing a murderous and brutal leader to protect innocent civilians, together with instances of ‘ticking bombs’ – that is, immediate and otherwise unavoidable grievous threats to noncombatants. In each case a modified argument from necessity offers grounds for the defensible, although limited, use of assassination.

Police, the Public, ‘Less Lethal Force’ and Suspects: Deconstructing the Human Rights Arguments

2009 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 194-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhona Smith
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Law Enforcement Officers ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Electronic Control ◽  
The Public ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Control Devices ◽  
The Law

Violent criminals pose threats to the life and well-being of the police and public alike. One response is the development of mid-range ‘less-lethal’ weapons such as TASER® stun guns and other electronic control devices (ECD). These have the power to incapacitate the suspect temporarily, neutralising the threat to the public, the suspect him- or herself and the law enforcement officers. Nevertheless there have been claims that the deployment of such weapons violates human rights. This article thus considers the use of electronic control devices by law enforcement officers within a human rights framework. The principal issues evolve from the coexistence of potential beneficiaries of the salient human rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document