@joshweertman
Should the police force have the ability to use force to the point of killing a suspect or should they only be allowed to subdue individuals?
To start, I think that there is no real way to enforce an essentially “no-kill rule” for police officers. In a few cases, in order to ensure the safety of the officers and civilians around them, there are cases where the killing of a suspect is necessary. However, it should always be the absolute last resort for the police department. At the moment, I believe there needs to be more emphasis on de-escalation training for police. I feel many times the death of a suspect was unnecessary and could be prevented. Many countries around the world have even resorted to not allowing their police to carry firearms on them at all times. For example, the UK allows only a few select policemen to carry firearms on them at all times, other officers keep them in locked boxes in their patrol cars. So for typical routine disturbances, police officers will not keep guns on them, but if they are called into an escalated and dangerous situation they would have access to a gun.
The topic of our class this week is force and coercion. The American Polec force is often known for abusing its power and using force when not necessary. While the majority of police officers don't abuse their power, enough of them do so that most Americans fear police officers. Due to recent events of the last year, the training of police officers has come to light. There is an obvious lack of de-escalation training for police officers that is greatly needed. In times of protest, which is fully legal in the United States, police officers may escalate the situation themselves. As I mentioned, there are of course times when deadly options are the only option, however, the use of firearms by policeman are much higher than they need to be.
