Recent orders
Use of Force
Use of Force
Name
Institution
Use of force
Law enforcement officers have a sole responsibility of maintaining law and order in society, as their main role. This means that they are also responsible for security, both of persons and property, from harm, theft and destruction. They have the authority to deal with persons who engage in activities that are a breach of the peace. Breach of the peace refers to the creation of public disturbance through disorderly and unlawful actions. They also carry out the task of arresting criminals and charging them for crimes committed through the court system. Arresting, on the other hand refers to the act of seizing and holding criminals or crime suspects or people that have committed offenses under, he authority of the law, as spelled out by the constitution.
In their line of duty, police officers are allowed to use force, where need be, in the arrest of suspects. The magnitude and severity of the force used varies and there is no universal scale that has been agreed upon and that can be used to gauge the amount that can be used. According Jenkins (2011) police officers are allowed by law to use reasonable force in taking a person into custody. Reasonable force in this case means that the officer uses minimal force in trying to subdue the suspect and put him under control and maybe put handcuffs on the suspect if need be (Jenkins, 2011).
This mostly occurs when the suspect is unarmed and, therefore, poses no threat to the arresting officers and also in cases where there is minimal resistance from the person being arrested. Likewise, minimal reasonable force may be encountered when suspects attempt to escape and hence prompt the officers to run after them. At the time of arrest, the officers are at liberty to decide how much of force to use on a suspect so as to protect themselves and the public especially if the suspect poses a threat to those two.
The officers’ decision to use force can be termed as reasonable or unreasonable based on two issues. First, in attempting to arrest suspects of petty crimes, it has been seen than little force has been used, for felony and serious crimes that can harm a large population, and then any amount of force is used in the arrest. Secondly, attempts to flee are met with force regardless of how serious the crimes are (May, 2008). Also, possession of dangerous arms may prompt the officers to use force especially if there is risk of harming other people.
As the go about their business, police officers are required to respect and uphold the constitutional rights of the citizens they encounter even though they may be suspects of crimes. On the other hand, the status of a policeman is not a constitutional right and some incidences in their work may cause conflict with the public. This is in the case of the use of deadly force (May, 2008).
Deadly force, otherwise termed as unreasonable use of force can be defined as the act of going overboard in attempts to subdue the suspect. This is maybe because the police are protected from being sued for using force as a provision of quality immunity (May, 2008). This ensures that fear of being sued for use of force does not affect their work. Excessive force results in severe injury and in some cases have caused death of suspect and also, cases of suing by victims’ family.
In the scenario given, the use of excessive force by the officer on the two teenagers was not warranted. It was unnecessary to beat both of them since, according to the officer’s convictions; only one was involved with the recent burglaries. In addition, since there is no evidence of the teenagers being armed, it was not essential for the officer to use excessive force on the suspects.
In our situation, the families of the two teenagers have the right to sue the police department for use of excessive force during arrest. Excessive force claims in legal settings are based on Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Acts of 1871, which is a federal law simply known as Section 1983. On the basis of this statute, it is illegal for any individual acting under the clout of the law, say police officers, to deprive another person his or her civil rights as provided for by U. S constitution.
In putting forward an Excessive Use of Force claim, the first step for two families ought to be preserving and documenting the evidence soonest after the incidence (Ridgeway, 2009). This should be in connection instruction that may be gives by civil rights attorney that the families may use. This includes recording statements from the teenagers and also those of witness who may have seen the incident. Also, photos may be taken too and kept for presentation in court (Ridgeway, 2009).
The families must also act within a stipulated time frame so as not to miss the deadline and hence be barred from suing. With all the evidence collected, the families then should file a complaint with the concerned police department and also make a police misconduct report with the US Department of Justice as well as the US office of the Attorney General (Ridgeway, 2009). With that, the case ought to be assessed by the parties involved and if found to be a worthy case, it will go to court.
Ours being one of them, the presentation of evidence gathered as well as testimonies of witnesses, then there should to be payment of damages for the two families as that is proof that the misconduct did occur. In the event that the teenagers’ families win the claim, there is compensation for inflicted suffering as well as violation of rights. Such civil rights claims are an essential part of the legal system as they provide equilibrium between the role of law enforcement to maintain the law and the protection of rights of individuals from police misconduct.
References
Ridgeway, G. (2009). Police-community relations in Cincinnati. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Jenkins, J. A. (2011). The American courts: A procedural approach. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers LLC.
May, D. A. (2008). Reasonable use of force by police: Seizures, firearms, and high-speed chases. New York: P. Lang.
Exam #2 – Question #2 Hamiltonianism
Exam #2 – Question #2: Hamiltonianism
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Course Name and Code
Professor’s Name
Date
Exam #2 – Question #2: Hamiltonianism
Alexander Hamilton is among the major founders of the United States Constitution and fought in the American Revolutionary War. His significant role as a founding father helped maintain the American nation’s independence from Great Britain and secure the United States government (Leidner, 2019). His ambitions as a politician to represent the people of the United States began a long time in the 17th century. Historical research indicates that Hamilton was a political philosopher and federalist who supported constitutional ratification. Research indicates that at the start of his political career, he became a colonial protest supporter against the British imperial policy. Through this, he drafted several pamphlets for almost a year, attacking the ideologies of outspoken loyalist Samuel Seabury. As an author, Hamilton wrote Federalist papers arguing for ratifying the United States Constitution (Hamilton et al., 2008). And up to date, his true legacy remains in the political history of the United States since he built and pushed for the success of the newly independent United States since he acted as a driving force. Since he participated in the Revolutionary war as Washington’s right-hand man, who appointed him as his first treasury secretary. A position he significantly utilized and articulated various political ideologies that have had great impacts on American life. For instance, the first secretary of the Treasury under the Washington regime sought to create a strong financial foundation for the United States and gave the central government more power. He also inspired and led to the formation of the first Federalist Party (Leidner, 2019).
However, in the philosophical comparison between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, who served as the secretary, Hamilton’s influence on the Washington administration and the future of America significantly differentiated. Based on the philosophical perspective, Hamilton and Jefferson differed significantly because Hamilton was a Federalist, a believer in the natural aristocracy of wealth Hamilton wanted a strong central government run by the well-educated and wealthy elite. And he was acting as an example to show that the government wanted to be strong by creating a strong financial foundation for the United States. He was indicating his opinion that government should emphasize property rights and security since wealthy elites should run it (Federici, 2012). In contrast, Jefferson was a Republican who argued that the concentration of power in the central federal government would contribute to autocracy. And as a champion of the ‘common man, ‘ Jefferson claimed that independent farmers, self-reliant and sturdy, should have a central voice in government affairs. Indicating that he wanted the ‘common man’ to run the nation. This a clear expression of his opinion that government should be democratic and emphasize liberty which will make people contented with the form of government arguing that free people will be able secure property. Their political and ideological differences led to the origin of the two-party political system in the United States. Because Hamilton strongly opposed Jefferson’s ideology that a government should be democratic and entirely elected and run by the people with less taxation and military (Gargarella, 2010).
Despite being founders of the United States, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had different opinions concerning human nature. The federalist essay that Hamilton wrote in reflection of his opinion on human nature highlights the dangers of the motives of men as represented in republics and represented as superior kings. He argued that confederation would bring more harmony to the state. To affirm his opinion on human nature, he shared his colleague Madison’s ideology on distrust of human nature and believed in individuals’ capability to overcome alleged deficiencies with a motive. However, this significantly differed from Thomas Jefferson’s opinion on human nature since he believed that the nature of a man is generally good (Scott, 2008).
When Alexander Hamilton was serving as the secretary of the Treasury, he faced significant problems, one of them being the large economic national debt. He recommended that the central government take up the federal government and the states’ outstanding debt through his assumption plan. This means that he called upon the central government to repay federal and state debts since he advocated for the government to account for all bonds before 1789 by the federal and state governments (funding plan). And he planned new bonds that were to be used to clear old debts. Hamilton’s debt plan program that he initiated showed significant success, indicating that Americans were willing to repay their debt. This motive impressed local investors and made the United States attractive to foreign investors. Hamilton’s next plan was to create a Bank of the United States to serve as a government-owned central Bank, modeled after the Bank of England. The bank he proposed to be created was to hold government funds, lend funds (loans) to the government and borrowers, and collect taxes or revenues (Hamilton, 2021). This plan received criticism from republicans arguing that the bank was unrepublican since it would encourage corruption. Republicans further criticized the creation of the bank on constitutional grounds. But Hamilton defended that criticism by claiming or arguing that Congress had the power to create since the constitution empowers and approved that federal government authority had the power to do anything that would help carry its constitutional functions. Moreover, Hamilton, in his plan to help American manufacturers, proposed to Congress to pass a tariff on tax and subsidies to protect the manufacturing industry from imported goods from other nations. For instance, he wanted a protective tariff imposed on imported goods to make them more expensive than locally manufactured goods (Hamilton, 2021).
References
Federici, M. P. (2012). The political philosophy of Alexander Hamilton. JHU Press.
Gargarella, R. (2010). The Legal Foundations of Inequality: Constitutionalism in the Americas, 1776–1860 (Vol. 8). Cambridge University Press.
Hamilton, A. (2021). Selected Writings. Courier Dover Publications.
Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (2008). The federalist papers. Oxford University Press.
Leidner, G. (2019). The Leadership Secrets of Hamilton: 7 Steps to Revolutionary Leadership from Alexander Hamilton and the Founding Fathers. Sourcebooks, Inc..
Scott, K. A. (2008). Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton: A Defining Political Debate. Universal-Publishers.
only through submission in prayer. To him
this is a means of justifying God’s ways to man.