Curiosity Of A Police Officer

Police brutality is one of the most serious and divisive human rights violations in the United States and it occurs in every community. The job of a police officer is to maintain public order, prevent, and detect crime. They are engaged in a dangerous and stressful occupation that can involve violent situations that must be controlled. In many of these confrontations with the public it may become necessary for the police to administer force to take control of a situation. Sometimes this force takes the form of hand to hand combat with a suspect who resists being arrested. Not all police officers in communities are good cops. At least once a year the news is covering a story about a person

When it comes to police officer disciplinary actions, the lines becomes thin and more difficult to read between. It is not such a black and white situation and when it comes to properly disciplining a police officer it can become difficult to do so especially when that officer has either been on the force a long time so there is an established relationship, or the inappropriate act they committed happened just once and they claim it will never happen again. These types of things make it much harder to decide what the right discipline may be for that officer.

Police brutality is any unjustified use of excessive violence, abuse, humiliation or racism from a police officer that insults or degrades someone else. Police brutality occurrences range from crude language and harassment to severe beatings and murder. Some believe these incidences are caused because police officers are granted too much power as a result of the badges they carry. Other examples of police misusing their authority include discrimination, partisanship, public humiliation, and defamation. Victims of police brutality have been dehumanized by humiliation, discrimination and physical abuse.

Police brutality can be defined as a cruel or inhuman treatment by a police officer. Police brutality situations can happen in different ways, for example a person can be stopped by the police for what appears to be a routine traffic stop, for not using a turn signal and the situation can get out of control. The driver can become defensive to the police officer and does not understand why they

Police officers are often viewed as oppressors and unjust by the community, when in reality they are just doing their jobs. The job of a police officer is to apprehend criminals and detect crime, and the maintenance of public order and to the extend and complication of this duty police officers often need to make split second decision that is not often view by the public as what we call “self-defense” which is a right we all have as human beings and stated in the Universal Declaration of

Individuals often question why police officers take certain actions. A law enforcement officer must follow certain practices when interacting with the public, and individuals need to know how to respond in these situations. When a person is stopped by the police, he or she needs to remain respectful and courteous. Although the person may feel they are being harassed, it likely isn't. Instead, the officer is responding to a complaint lodged by another individual, whether or not there is any basis for this complaint. They are required to do so, even if little information is provided. They have no knowledge of the innocence or guilt of the person being questioned. They are simply doing their job and those being questioned need to remember this.

What is police brutality? Police brutality is an act of misconduct done by a member law enforcement through the use of an extreme amount of force to physically, mentally, or emotionally attack a member of society. Many law enforcement officers, those sworn to protect and serve, have abused their rights and authority to ferociously assault and manipulate citizens, even if they were innocent. Citizens who have been attacked have been left with physical and emotional scars that can never go away; in some cases, it has even caused death. In a report by David Packman, prepared for the Cato Institute in 2011, states that 247 deaths were linked to police misconduct cases.(Packman 2011)

Richard A. Leo, the author of “False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications” states, “Investigators first misclassify an innocent person as guilty; they next subject him to a guilt presumptive, accusatory interrogation that invariably involves lies about evidence and often the repeated use of implicit and explicit promises and threats as well.” From this, we can see that in some instances, investigators have already made up their mind that someone is guilty, so they do anything to get their

During interrogations an officer can lie to a suspect to obtain information, with very few exceptions. The U.S. Supreme court has ruled that it okay to lie to a suspect in order to obtain information with few exceptions. An exception to lying to a suspect would be telling a suspect that has been in a lengthy interrogation if they confess to a crime they will be able to go home (Nici, Live Chat 7, 2012). If the lie will potentially illicit a false statement and gives an incentive to the accused in custody to give a false statement it will be considered inadmissible (Nici, Live Chat 8, 2012). In this instance even if Miranda was given this would violate the suspects’ rights, and the statement is inadmissible.

My question is who would want to confess to a crime they didn’t commit? I can understand that the pressure of the police can be a bit intense but to own up to something that you didn’t do is just I can’t wrap my mind around it, but if someone is doing this to cover for someone else then I would have to say that is completely insane. I am not sure that they know the consequences of their actions. “The Reid Technique trains officers to first ask non-accusatory questions in order to determine whether the subject is lying about their involvement in the crime.” If the officer believes that the subject is involved in the crime, then an accusatory interrogation takes place. At this stage, the officer asks questions believing that the subject is guilty and the goal is to have the subject admit guilt.” The Reid technique is one of the most used techniques that the police officers use currently. I really don’t think there are pro’s for convicted someone who didn’t do a crime that they are accused of. But looking at the cons of it, they really do outweigh the

In order to avoid officers from lying on the stand, they should be warned of the consequences and charged with perjury because they are committing a crime (England, n.d.). The act of lying while under oath is against the law (England, n.d.). It is the criminal justice system’s duty to find out the truth, and when an officer is

If an officer has a previous instance of falsifying testimony, any testimony he gives in the future could be thrown out of court, letting an offender go free.

Citizens of the United States, we are guaranteed certain rights by the Constitution. Police officers haven’t always acted in accordance with the constitutional rights of citizens when it comes to gathering evidence of a crime. As a result, the United States Supreme Court has had to limit the incentive for government officials to violate these rights.

A police officer is morally obligated to lie on account of trying to stay ethical. (Ciske, 2009) How many criminals do you know that are volunteering to confess criminal activity? Social media in our society has added to everyone views on the conduct or misconduct of police officers. I believe the focus should be on public safety rather than how police use deception to get an individual to confess. A police officer using trickery to get a confession is no more different than a person lying on the witness stand. Crimes are being committed, and someone has to solve them. However, any statement made during interrogation without being Mirandized usually are thrown out of court. Miranda states that once a person in custody invokes the right to remain silent, whether before or during questioning, the interrogation must stop. (Hall, 2014) The purpose of Miranda is to reduce the risk that coerced confession would be admitted; therefore, police should not be responsible for an individual ranting off during interrogation. Suspects in custody have rights; it’s up to them to exercise their rights.

Police office officers lie for many reasons, some are accepted and some are not. Lies could be important parts of an investigation or violations of law (Peak et al, 2010). “Accepted lying includes police activities to apprehend or entrap suspects” (Peak et al, 2010, p. 224). A good example would be, “We picked your partner up a couple minutes ago and he's being interviewed by the detectives right now. Do you really think he's going to protect you? Maybe you should help yourself out and tell me what really happened" (Hawk, 2014, par. 3). This is not coercive and should not lead an innocent person to plead guilty. Three other situations where forms of lying is accepted are “offering the illegal action as part of a larger socially