Discussion: When Is Law Enforcement Officers’ Use of Force Justified?
I HAVE CHOSEN: Kingsley v. Hendrickson 744 F. 3d 443 (2015)
Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions provide guidance on how use of force is evaluated during legal disputes. The two court decisions differ according to who defines “reasonable use of force” when the use of force in a situation is evaluated to decide whether it is justified. In Graham v. Connor (1989), the court determined that “reasonableness” as it pertains to use of force, is defined according to the opinion of an officer at the scene of the incident or who could imagine being at the scene. Accordingly, reasonable use of force and whether it is justified are defined by law enforcement officers. In Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015), the court made a different decision about who determines how “reasonable” is defined as it pertains to use of force. The court decided that the reasonableness of the use of force could be determined by ordinary citizens. In the Graham v. Connor (1989) court decision, the actions of police officers were the focus. In Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015), the actions of correctional officers were the focus of the legal issues. Both court decisions, however, defined whether use of force would be considered to be reasonable. An important legal question about this shift in the U.S. Supreme Courts’ decision is whether the recent opinion that involved correctional officers will also be applicable to police officers’ use of force. To date, this legal question has not been addressed in a court of law. Who do you think should set the standards for how “reasonable” is defined in use of force?:
For this Discussion, you will analyze both U.S. Supreme Court decisions and identify the one that you agree with the most. Using the Learning Resources, you will explain and justify your opinion. You will also consider how the most recent decision, Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015), might affect social change, if the standards to evaluate reasonableness based on this decision replace those of the decision in Graham v. Connor (1989).
By Day 3
Post a response in which you do the following:
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more