Use of Force Essay Example for Free

Use of Force Essay Use of force can be defined as the right granted to the authority or an individual to settle conflicts through measures that are aimed at either preventing or dissuading a given party from a certain course of action or physical intervention to stop the individual(s) from taking a certain course of action. As such, use of force may be applied by the military, the police, other security personnel or corrections in an effort to stop or prevent crime. The executive branch may also exercise the use of force in such cases as deploying the military or the police in an effort to maintain law and order or to defend the sovereignty of the country in question. However, the use of force by the executive branch is dependent on political jurisdiction passed by the legislative branch. In essence, the use of force is vested in statutes in the constitution with a series of progressive actions authorizing given authorities and security bodies to apply the use of force in certain situation. Unlike the use of negotiation and conflict resolution techniques, forced is useable by a law enforcement officer if a law breaker decline from desisting a certain course of action or if he attempts to run. Use of force in this context includes physical restraint and lethal force to solve or to restrain such an individual from committing the crime. The general rule however remains that only a reasonable force maybe used and only the necessary one given the circumstances under which force is required. As such, individuals authorizing the use of force are always held accountable for the degree or the level of force employed in any given situation (Marie, 2001, p. 43). Law enforcement officers and security personnel are usually faced with varying situation in their line of duty that requires them to use force in deterring crime or even to protect themselves. An example of such a situation is when a police officer is involved in a shoot out with criminals. In such a situation, force will be required not only to deter the criminals but also for self defense. While use of force is permissible in certain circumstances, the level and the degree to which force is applied is usually limited by the circumstance in question. Security and police officers are required to use only the necessary force given a certain circumstance and are thus held responsible and accountable for force used in such circumstances. On the other hand, the degree of force applied by an officer is dependent on not only the circumstance at hand but also on how such an officer is equipped in terms of a gun, handcuffs or other equipment and tools used by law enforcement officers such as pepper spray. As opposed to police officers, security officers are not authorized to make arrests but situation may bid them to take a criminal into custody. Whether a security officer or a police officer, dealing with any situation require the application of reasonable force by avoiding excessive force under the circumstance in question (Regina, 2001, p. 38). In this regard, the officer involved is required to access the seriousness of the situation, the risk associated with such a situation and the situation immediacy. In case it is a security officer who is present in such a situation, the best action to take is to inform law enforcement authorities to take the relevant action. Diffusing any given situation requires that the police officers be well trained and informed regarding the laws applicable and especially on the use of force continuum which gives the necessary guidelines in regard to the degree of force applicable in different situations (Thomas, 2002, p. 62). The use of force continuum can be broken down to six levels that are designed in an elastic manner in the context of the need for using force given that situations keep on changing. For example, a situation may require that the level of force used bounce from level one to level two and back again in a matter of minutes or seconds. In regard to the use of force continuum, the first level includes the presence of a visible and uniformed police officer or a marked vehicle. This is usually seen as enough to stop or deter a crime. The presence of an officer here includes walking, running or standing. Also defined in the concept of presence is use of vehicle lights, speaker or a horn. In this context, the police officer is capable of stopping a crime without a word but rather through the use of gestures and body language. However, such gestures should be professional and non-threatening. The second level involves the combination of presence of an officer and the use of verbal communication to deter or stop a crime in progress. In essence, variation in voice can be used such as whispering, shouting or just normally to achieve the desired results. Officers are usually advised to start calmly in a firm but non-threatening manner. Words chosen and their intensity can be varied as deemed necessary and short commands can be used in dealing with serious situations. This level requires that a police officer be well trained in communication skills so as to be able to communicate effectively in any given situation. In essence, the use of verbal communication combined with the presence of the police officer can be able to deter or stop a crime without the need for physical force (Ian, 1998, p. 23). Level three involves the use of control holds and restraints where words and presence fails to apply. This requires the physical involvement of the police officer present in the situation. However, minimal force should be used including bare hands for guiding, restraining or holding the law breaker. Thus at this level, use of offensive moves such as punching should be avoided. The officer in question may make use of pain compliance holds where ordinary holds fail to control a suspect who is aggressive. On the other hand, the officer may make use of handcuffs where a suspect exhibits traits of aggression, where he or she poses a real threat of where such a suspect exhibits the possibility of fleeing. On the other hand, not all suspects require handcuffs and if the officer uses handcuffs, he is responsible for guiding such an individual to prevent him from falling or tripping. Great care should also be observed to avoid any bodily harm to the suspect such as positional asphyxiation. Training is therefore important to help police officers apply the necessary measures in situations that require use of control holds and restraints (Marie, 2001, p. 52). The forth level of use of force continuum involves the use of chemical agents to diffuse a crime. If the officer establishes that the suspect is threatening or violent, extreme but non violence measures can be used to control the suspect. This however is subject to the assumption that all other levels of force continuum have failed to be effective. In this regard, pepper splay or tear gas can be used to diffuse the situation. It is important to note here that proper care should be taken when using chemical agents to deter or stop a crime as such agents may cause death or severe reactions to suspects with allergic and other medical conditions. Moreover, they can cause the suspect to fall down a staircase or walk into traffic (Regina, 2001, p. 27). Level five involves measures aimed at temporary incapacitating the suspect in question. The assumption behind use of force in this level is that the circumstance was extreme, immediate and violent. The officer then can use empty hands or impact tools. In this regard, defensive and offensive moves are allowed but must be applied properly and in the right circumstances. Temporary incapacitation is useful in preventing an injury in regard to the officer and other people involved in the situation. The officer may make use of baton blows on certain joints areas or on soft tissues or use of stun gun to incapacitate the suspect long enough to handcuff him or get more help. Care must however be taken while applying any measures as some of them such as neck compressions are very risky and poses a threat to the livelihood of the suspect.

Essay --

Cauvery River Dispute - The Cauvery river dispute is one of the longest river dispute today. The dispute began in 1974 when the 50 year old agreement between the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu Collapsed. The Cauvery basin covers majorly 3 states and 1 UT – i.e. it originates Talacauvery in Coorg in Mysore state and then flows to Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry. But the Use and development of Cauvery Waters were regulated by agreements of 1892 and 1924, which were solely between the Mysore and Tamil Nadu. According to the Karnataka government the 1924 agreements states the discontinuation of the water supply to Tamil Nadu after 50 year. In 1990, SC directs centre to constitute Cauvery Water dispute tribunal (CWDT). The tribunal heard both the parties and reached a conclusion that Karnataka should release 205TMC of water to Tamil Nadu, every month. Karnataka denied the ruling and argued that it is impossible to implement the decision as in failed monsoons many areas of Karnataka are left without water. In that case they have to transfer water at the cost of their own people. In August 1998 the Centre constituted the Cauvery River Authority to ensure the implementation of the CWDT. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) announced its final verdict on 5 February 2007, after 16 years. The Tribunal made the two agreements of 1892 and 1924 functional. According to the verdict, Tamil Nadu was supposed to get 419 billion ft ³ of Cauvery water while Karnataka was supposed to get 270 billion ft ³. But the Karnataka still didn’t release the water as per the tribunal ruling. On 19 September 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and also the Chairman of the Cauvery River Authority, ordered Karnataka government to release around 9,000 cus... ...sing rapidly.† Karnataka depends heavily on Cauvery to fulfil its drinking needs where as Tamil Nadu depends on Cauvery for irrigation. Wide scale Rice cultivation in Tamil Nadu is one of the reasons that Cauvery needs so much water. The question is why the food security of Tamil Nadu depends heavily on rice, as TN doesn’t have the resources to grow rice in such quantities. According to R K Sivanappan, former head of the Water Technology Centre of the Coimbatore Agricultural University, â€Å"Tamil Nadu could meet all its municipal water requirements by reducing the area under paddy cultivation by just 2 per cent from the present level of 2.7 million ha†. Bothe states should start looking for other methods to solve their water woes or should try to get into a mutual understanding, instead of politicising the issue. Nishant Sharma Radio Stream Essay -- Cauvery River Dispute - The Cauvery river dispute is one of the longest river dispute today. The dispute began in 1974 when the 50 year old agreement between the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu Collapsed. The Cauvery basin covers majorly 3 states and 1 UT – i.e. it originates Talacauvery in Coorg in Mysore state and then flows to Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry. But the Use and development of Cauvery Waters were regulated by agreements of 1892 and 1924, which were solely between the Mysore and Tamil Nadu. According to the Karnataka government the 1924 agreements states the discontinuation of the water supply to Tamil Nadu after 50 year. In 1990, SC directs centre to constitute Cauvery Water dispute tribunal (CWDT). The tribunal heard both the parties and reached a conclusion that Karnataka should release 205TMC of water to Tamil Nadu, every month. Karnataka denied the ruling and argued that it is impossible to implement the decision as in failed monsoons many areas of Karnataka are left without water. In that case they have to transfer water at the cost of their own people. In August 1998 the Centre constituted the Cauvery River Authority to ensure the implementation of the CWDT. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) announced its final verdict on 5 February 2007, after 16 years. The Tribunal made the two agreements of 1892 and 1924 functional. According to the verdict, Tamil Nadu was supposed to get 419 billion ft ³ of Cauvery water while Karnataka was supposed to get 270 billion ft ³. But the Karnataka still didn’t release the water as per the tribunal ruling. On 19 September 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and also the Chairman of the Cauvery River Authority, ordered Karnataka government to release around 9,000 cus... ...sing rapidly.† Karnataka depends heavily on Cauvery to fulfil its drinking needs where as Tamil Nadu depends on Cauvery for irrigation. Wide scale Rice cultivation in Tamil Nadu is one of the reasons that Cauvery needs so much water. The question is why the food security of Tamil Nadu depends heavily on rice, as TN doesn’t have the resources to grow rice in such quantities. According to R K Sivanappan, former head of the Water Technology Centre of the Coimbatore Agricultural University, â€Å"Tamil Nadu could meet all its municipal water requirements by reducing the area under paddy cultivation by just 2 per cent from the present level of 2.7 million ha†. Bothe states should start looking for other methods to solve their water woes or should try to get into a mutual understanding, instead of politicising the issue. Nishant Sharma Radio Stream

Answers to queries on Orwell’s 1984 Essay

In the essay Why I Write, Orwell explained that all the serious work he wrote since the Spanish Civil War in 1936 were â€Å"written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism. † (Orwell, 5) What can you add by looking at his life and his mental state when writing the novel? The author wrote the novel in 1947–1948 while critically ill with tuberculosis. The writer himself wrote about the stages of his life leading to the period when he wrote the novel: First I spent five years in an unsuitable profession (the Indian Imperial Police, in Burma), and then I underwent poverty and the sense of failure. This increased my natural hatred of authority and made me for the first time fully aware of the existence of the working classes, and the job in Burma had given me some understanding of the nature of imperialism: but these experiences were not enough to give me an accurate political orientation. Then came Hitler, the Spanish Civil War, etc. By the end of 1935 I had still failed to reach a firm decision (on political position)†¦. † (Orwell, 6 parenthetical interpretation mine. ) What was the world like in 1949 (the immediate post-WW II era) in terms of politics, economics, and particularly the media? After Allied victory, two opposing world views and ideology—capitalism ( that termed itself democracy) and socialism (that called itself the democracy of the working class) characterized the previously unified Allied Forces, the former led by  America, on the latter by the Soviet Union. The two worlds have polarized economic systems: capitalism (which espoused free enterprise) and socialism (which espoused economic central planning). The two blocks also had opposing media philosophy: the so-called free libertarian press, in the tradition of the US revolution, and that of the Marxian school which saw media as the tool of the socialist revolution. This was the cold war era, and the world was politically bipolar: the United States and the Soviet Union were the superpowers. Orwell’ s once mighty Britain had become an impoverished crumbling has-been, even as its newspapers were reporting false triumphs. When he wrote 1984, Orwell saw the betrayal and perversion of socialist ideals in his country, and his hope of â€Å"English Socialism† had crashed. The novel is aimed primarily as a critique against totalitarianism. But what kind? As his dream of â€Å"English Socialism† turned into a monstrous ideology of oppression, Orwell saw its dehumanization even as its source model has become oppressors of the Soviet nations. Many of the characters in the novel in fact are believed to be depicting real figures from the Soviet Union. He was focused on the British socialists but obviously he had the Soviet politburo in mind as well. And he was obviously sure the British-American partnership would be heading towards the same direction. Why is the novel perhaps even more relevant than it when it was first written Al Gore in his Assault on Reason panned against us present-day Americans in our failure to oppose Bush when he led us to a baseless war against Iraq, against the advice of his own policymakers and using fabricated lies. Through the power of the media and the arousal of fear in us, our leader and his media spinners led us to embrace his war without us raising a whimper. (Gore, 2007; Bossard, 2007) He also warned us against any future effort to gag the internet, in the manner China is now doing it—arguing that the internet is our last hope of interactive democratic dialogues through which an informed nation can guard itself against the media and other manipulative technologies of a ruling demagogue. There have been many instances when even the most intelligent of nations have een misled by their leaders—the example of Hitler for the German people, and the recent example of the Philippines (1986) where a dictator ruled for 30 years until a unified people power ended a despotic rule, incidentally American-supported. Initially, warnings of intellectuals like Orwell may be voices in the wilderness in, but as proven by world events, at the appointed time nations would heed them, and people will move against their oppressors. Tell me why you think the novel can be used to teach students about media, history, and what we think we know. What does the book teach us about how to respond to political campaigns and advertising? What does it say about us? Against the backdrop of experience, the novel tells us how revolutions devour their sons and fail their fathers. But what Orwell warns against is the use of our skills as media men in the overall scheme of Big Brother. In the novel, the main character Winston Smith, was a revisionist writer of history who wrote it according to the whim of Big Brother’s officialdom. The propaganda machines of Big Brother were staffed by media professionals. Media churns out materials tainted by political motives. Media people are potential instruments of oppression and deceit. Lastly, how is the novel truthful, original, and human? In Why I Write Orwell said : â€Å"(I write )†¦. because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention, and my initial concern is to get a hearing. † (p. 5) Yevgeny Zamyatin’s novel We was a primary influence for 1984. He also included the following as influences of the novel: Darkness at Noon and The Yogi and the Commissar by Arthur Kostner, The Iron Heel (1908) by Jack London, among other books. (Shelden, 1991) Surname 5 The humanity in this novel rests in its vigorous warning against falling into the trap that will lead humanity to the nightmare of 1984. The inhumanity of its characters ironically dramatically aroused a fear in us, so we its readers recoil in the lost of such human sensibility — which the novel helped recover for us, in its aspiration for a society of equals where people are human beings and not Big Brother robots.

The primary goal of the Jim Crow laws - segregation - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 552 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2019/08/08 Category Law Essay Level High school Tags: Jim Crow Laws Essay Did you like this example? In the North, some states allowed blacks to have a privilege to vote for president in the election. Some states required blacks to own property to vote, schools and neighborhoods were segregated, and businesses displayed whites only signs(History). African Americans still could not go to white schools or live in the same neighborhoods as whites. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The primary goal of the Jim Crow laws segregation" essay for you Create order Blacks were not allowed to show public affection toward each other because it offended whites. Blacks and whites were not supposed to eat together. If they did eat together, whites were to be served first, and some sort of partition was to be placed between them(Kennedy.S, 1959/1990). White people did not want black people to get their food before them because blacks will feel like they are equal to whites. The government was trying to help the black community as much as they can but it wasnt going well. The government attempted to help rebuild the south during this time, and assist with displaced African Americans and poor white farmers(Vicki Galer, 2013). Most black men had the rights to vote in state but women still could not vote in the states. During the Reconstruction era, African American men began to gain some power in politics, and with the ability to vote(Vicki Galer, 2013). This will help men take care of their family and get some good people in the office that will help their society. As Democrats began to regain power in the southern states, laws were passed to limit the ability of blacks to vote and hold office(Vicki Galer, 2013). Black men will help their family but not as much as they want to help them. And the government can help the black community get the rights that they deserve to have. Conclusion of Jim Crow Laws The government tried to help end Jim Crow laws that separated African Americans and whites in the southern states in the United States. In 1875 an attempt to revert the Jim Crow laws to give black people equal rights as the whites in the southern states was passed but had very little effect(Milner, 2013). This mean that the attempt did not go as well as they planned it to go because the white people still wanted to be separate from blacks. After African Americans received the right to vote and freedom, the Jim Crow laws were created to limit these rights(History). This made African Americans and whites equal in the United States. But in Mississippi and Georgia, black people was denied the rights to vote in the south of the United States. The Jim Crows were promoted as separate but equal; however, the primary goal of the Jim Crow laws was segregation. And doing that time black people could not do want they want because they were separate from white people and did not have equal rights. White leaders created and used these laws to limit the rights of African Americans and to control the African American population in the South(History). They did not want African Americans in the South because they did not want to be around them and they did not want them using the same bathrooms and water fountains that they was using. African Americans were forced to use separate public facilities, ride at the back of buses, and live in segregated communities.