Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Joe Hubbard]

I was wondering: has ever been a case where a tactic was ruled in a court of law as being illegal or is it just internal police policy that has outlawed certain methods of force from certain police jurisdictions?

Joe

[Hock]

Off the top of my head?
Its always been police admin and/or the attorneys that oversee their government insurance.


Hock

[Canuk]

I was wondering: has ever been a case where a tactic was ruled in a court of law as being illegal or is it just internal police policy that has outlawed certain methods of force from certain police jurisdictions?

Joe

Can you be more precise? there have been plenty of cases here where the courts have ruled that a particular use of force was excessive given the facts and cirrcumstances sourrounding the situation. At that point that tactic, given the nature and the injuries sustained was ruled illegal. Also in this province police can also be charged unde rteh police service act, in addition to faceing criminal and or civil actions

[Hock]

Police can shoot people right between the eyes.
It has to justifed. If its not justified then it could be prosecuted as a crime.
So, proper application of force can be "overseen" by civil and criminal courts in the USA. But there is no such criminal statute that says "Police will never shoot people between the eyes."

City, county, state and federal governments who need insuance, use insurance attorney guidelines, then interpreted by local government attorneys, to set this use of force policies.

Lets dissect the use of chokes. There has never been a US criminal law that outlaws police using chokes. Instead, there has been a wave -  a sweeping movement -  to restrict it by agency policy due to the risk of law suits.

The risk of law suits.

Hock

[Joe Hubbard]

That's what I thought, I just wanted clarification.  I'm assuming that it is probably the same in the UK?

Joe

[Black Knife]

Some agencies have very strict policies compared to others......it is usually the city's or county's  attorneys that approve the departmental policies. For instance the agency I worked for allowed the Carotid Restraint (choke) however other agencies would not allow it because it is thought to be a deadly technique. 

[Webby]

This issue is really a three part thing in the U.K. Your rights in Common Law ( Old English Law ), Criminal Law and The European Human Rights Act.

In the prison service for example, control and restaint tactic's are used, The Home Office doe's not approve any particular techniques, but doe's approve of the concept of C&R. You have the right to use restaint to prevent a criminal act taking place against yourself ( common law ) and in the execution of a lawful duty of office ( Criminal law ).

You cannot use inhuman, or degrading treatment in doing so ( European law ).

Joe I'll send you a more detailed explanation via E-Mail.

Webby..       

[Professor]

That's what I thought, I just wanted clarification.  I'm assuming that it is probably the same in the UK?

Joe

did you make a funny.   I would not assume that it's the same in the UK.   I was listening to BriThai......

ouch, that hurt.