Most departments do not allow warning shots, because they are dangerous and rarely have the effect of stopping behavior. The department’s policy is ambiguous and should be revised. Ambiguity in policy leads to officer misconduct and liability. Fourth, the pursuit should not have been allowed to continue. As previously stated, there is no clear indication of the commission of a criminal act.
On the other hand, other coworkers would not report her so, they could have power over her by blackmailing but this action is against American Correctional Association Code of Ethics, as well. “Members shall treat every professional situation with concern for the welfare of the individuals involved and with no intent to personal gain,” suggesting they are not treating coworkers with respect but to only achieve ‘personal gain’. This action breaks the creed which every correction officer protects which is un-honorable. I believe the best decision is to report her this action will protect myself as well as her in future altercations legally or dealing with
Because of these factors, the entire case is put into jeopardy. It could be found that the officer was not lawful in his pulling the vehicle over in the first place. If that were the case, everything subsequent to that would fall under the Fruits from the Poisonous Tree Doctrine, and therefore no evidence would be admissible. However, because of the totality of circumstance, this is not the case. The totality of circumstances provides that one must look past each individual aspect of the scenario and look at the scenario as a whole.
Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because of crimal justice. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because the person could run. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because now there are camera's that capture everything we do. Another opinion why this law should not be used today is because it is stupid to kill someone just because they stole some property. Another opinion is because some people do not like to kill
Batter is the unlawful physical violence on another person without their consent. Assault is a specific intent crime and battery is the commission of the specific intent. To constitute assault one has to commit an overt act from which the inference can be drawn that a violent injury was intended. Aggravated assaults are assaults with the intent to commit another offense like rape or murder. Aggravated assault can mean that assault is committed with the intention of committing an additional crime or something that involves a special circumstance.
I could have also been charged for lesser charges had things would have escalated worse off. The lesser charges fall under different Articles and they are as follows Lesser included offenses. Striking or assaulting warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer in the execution of office. Article 128—assault; assault consummated by a battery; assault with a dangerous weapon Article 128 assault upon warrant, non commissioned, or petty officer not in the execution of office Article 80—attempts Disobeying a warrant, non commissioned,
In the scenario case that we were given there are a couple different types of assault and battery that might have been committed. The first one is simple assault this is defined as: the intentional act by an individual, which leads to apprehension in other individuals that there is imminent offensive contact or harm (Pollock, 2012). Simple assault occurs through a threat to bodily harm that is accompanied, by a present and apparent ability, to cause harm. Assault is a tort and a crime, and this means it could lead to civil or criminal liability. Simple battery, on the other hand, is the unlawful and/or unauthorized utilization of force to another individual’s body that leads to that person being physically injured or even being offensively touched (Pollock, 2012).
Cases of Statuary Rape also hold the defendant strictly liable even if the defendant believed the victim to be of the age of consent, for example the case R. v G [2008] UKHL 37 where the appellant held that the complainant had told him she was 15. The court held that regardless of his reasonable belief, this was a strict liability crime under section 5 of the sexual offences act 2003. This case (as have many others) also raised several interesting issues regarding infringements of articles 6(1)/ (2) (due to strict liability) as well as article 8 (as the appellant himself a child) of The Human Rights Act 1998. It’s important to note that strict liability differs from absolute liability in that in a mistake of fact or an honest belief are not accepted defences. (b) Statues that are strictly liable are not easy to determine.
If the sex is not consented by both parties is then clearly it shouldn’t happen. It’s a violation of one’s person space and boundary. Depending on the severity of it, it can also be looked at the as violent act upon someone. When assaults of this nature are reported we are always trying figure out the reasoning behind it making excuses for the aggressor. There is a need for sovereignty and individual freedom that the assault takes away, and therefore that is the reason why a lot of cases go unreported.
It is never a good idea to carry a fake ID or run from the cops because of the many dangers (Potentially Fatal) that stray along with these acts. Firstly I should have stayed right where I was when the cops pulled up the night of the incident. I should have stood in there best sight and stood still until I was approached, but I followed my poor judgment and ran. This act was dangerous for