![]() The whole legal framework for determining whether lethal force is legal or not is premised on a flawed assumption that officers can determine what is reasonable.”Ī policy of unarmed police officers clearly has a better chance of working in countries where citizens don’t have access to guns. “We have a society where it’s often considered reasonable to take a black person reaching into their waistband as a threat. “What defines reasonable?,” says Hirschfield. Meanwhile, in the US, police officers can shoot if there’s “reasonable” perception of a grave and imminent threat, which is a far more subjective standard. Under the European Convention of Human Rights, police can only shoot if it’s “absolutely necessary” in order to achieve a legitimate law enforcement purpose. It doesn’t help that the law in the United States gives fairly wide scope for police violence. It fosters a whole different orientation and culture in law enforcement.” “If you have three years, you can also learn how to protect people, how to avoid these situations from arising in the first place. How you’re going to avoid getting hurt,” says Hirschfield. ![]() Unfortunately, in the United States, it’s about what you need to defend yourself. “If you only have 19 weeks of training, you’re going to spend those on the most essential things. Compare that to police in Norway, who have three years of training before they’re fully qualified. Paul Hirschfield, an associate professor of sociology at Rutgers University, points out that US police officers are trained for an average of just 19 weeks. But another key difference between the US and elsewhere is training. There are officers trained in how to handle firearms when necessary, and can respond to reports of a citizen with a gun by sending out an armed police officer. This means that police are rarely taken by surprise by a firearm. Of course, in all but Iceland, citizens in these countries generally don’t have access to guns. Richard Hill, history professor at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, explains that New Zealand police were disarmed for routine work in 1886, following the principle of the British police that: “Constables are placed in authority to protect, not to oppress, the public.” For officers to carry guns would not just be unnecessary, he says, “but also antithetical to the values of civil society.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |