If any citizen tries to misuse his or her basic rights, or take away other citizens, law enforcement is required to take action on it. Individual citizens are empowered by knowing what their rights are because it can protect you from self-incrimination and, keep the criminal justice system from convicting and individual of something they did not do. It can also help you to not get arrested for something you did not do, Knowing what your rights are can also help you know what is criminal from not being criminal, and can keep you out of the criminal justice system. The role of the
Why Police Officers Shouldn’t be Allowed to Carry Firearms By Sai Avuthu Police officers are law enforcers who are employed by the government. Their whole purpose is to ensure a crime free society and bring justice to criminals who disobey the law. Essentially, they represent peace. However, carrying firearms, weapons of killing and destruction, is the exact opposite of peace. Although police officers stand for peace, there are many countries where people view police not as the hero but as the villain.
Is it ethical or unethical…that is the question. First off, what is “professional courtesy?” In law enforcement professional courtesy is when an on-duty officer pulls over an off-duty or retired officer for some traffic violation and lets him go, by not issuing a ticket or arresting him. The central ideal behind this behavior is that cops have to stick together, to look out for each other. In a profession that yields little respect from the general public officers should support other officers, not try to bring them down. This subject has many perspectives however, and each officer, depending on his life experiences and personal values, feels differently about this ethical dilemma.
His belief was that if nonviolence led to a nonsolution, and cruelty still surfaced in the community, then you should defend yourself by using any means necessary. I concur with his assessment of how to respond with the misdeeds of both former and today’s society. Although it can be viewed as unnecessary and idiotic, initiating violence can be utilized to defend against tyranny, ultimately shielding the innocent lives of those that are victimized. Malcolm X’s main idea is to uphold the entitlement of security and justification. He believed it was “a crime for anyone who is being brutalized to continue to accept that brutality without doing something to defend himself.” This corresponds with the second amendment in the United States Constitution: the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
It protects the guilty rather than the victims. This rule basically states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a criminal trial. The basis of this rule is supposed to prevent the police and other sections of the government from illegally searching or violating our homes and our privacy. When all it really does is prevents the truth from surfacing and help criminals go free. After researching both sides of this issue, in no way am I stating that I don’t understand the determination of the opposing side to keep this rule.
Stand Your Ground Are Stand Your Ground Laws in Florida and many other states just and fair? Are they constructive or damaging towards justice? Many people are pushing to get rid of this law because they think that it provides criminals a loophole. A law is “a binding custom or practice of a community, a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority.” (“law”) In other words the purpose of a law is to protect a person from outside aggression or harm, establish rules needed for society to live and work together, to ensure justice is being served, and to maintain social order. When a law is being made, it is for the better well being of society as a whole and not each individual
Police officers use extreme measures when it is unnecessary causing a major concern in today’s society, this misconduct should be addressed. Police brutality is when a police officer beats a person or criminal for no reason and is not being threatened. It also happens not only physically but verbally. Police can not use more force than necessary; they should not hit, rough up, or otherwise hurt a person who is unharmed, acts in a non-threatening manner, and follows all directions.(Sieminiski). The excessive use of force by police officers continues because of overwhelming barrier to accountability.
For these problems, solutions will be discussed, focusing on political reform, education, and citizen review boards. These measures are necessary to protect ourselves from police taking advantage of their positions as law enforcement officers with greater permissive rights than private citizens. Because of this significant differential, all citizens must take affirmative action from physical brutality, rights violations, and information abuse. Discrimination can lead to legal problems for an officer of the law. If discrimination due to an officer’s use of discretion results in a violation of due process it is a violation of the law.
In the U.S. constitution the 5th amendment protects citizens from the abuse of government employees. The 14th amendment prohibits state and local governments from depriving any person’s life, liberty, or property without taking the proper and certain steps to ensure fairness to that individual. A lot can go into answering the question: why did u use excessive force. The answers can be race of the cop and victim, situation, looks even the victims attitude towards the arresting officer etc… There are certain things you can do to fight back using your voice, the law and the courts. If you are
By making this exclusionary rule, the court has to take the incentive away so police cannot take a person’s constitutional right’s away. Law enforcement cannot just bust down a person door just because police cannot even search a person car without a search warrant. There is a purpose to this rule and that is to make law enforcement enforce their own rules. The main purpose is to deter police or discourage police from doing illegal searched. The purpose also is if law enforcement was to take the evidence it would not be used in the court of law unless issue or that person can be set free of all charges.