Police officers are permitted to use weapons to make an arrest when it is deemed necessary. During their career, police officers are exposed to different situations which demand them to use force to make an arrest or face injuries or even death. Notably, a job as a police officer is regarded worth since one contributes directly to the society by reducing crime incidences. As a result, one needs to prepare psychologically to tackle the challenges in the field. However, police officers deal with criminal directly. In most situations, the police officers have to battle it out with a criminal to save the victims of the crime, and also arrest the offender. The case is usually worsened off when the criminal is well equipped. In such circumstances, the police may be forced to use weapons to make such arrests. Using guns in this case means forcing the criminal to cope with the officer (Terrill & Paoline, 2017). There are results in this case. First, the offender has a mission of escaping the jail term and may use any means to evade the situation. This includes harming the officers if they are compelled. On the other hand, the police officer has to do three things at the same time. First, they have to ensure that in case there are victims, their safety is number one priority. Further, they must ensure that they are safe and minimize own dangers lastly, they have to arrest the criminal at all costs. This has raised the question of whether the officers are allowed to use weapons to make an arrest.
The opposers claim that the officers abuse their power to use the weapons they have within their command. They argue that officers have used guns in many instances to harm innocent citizens even if they are less armedor entirely unarmed. On the other hand, the proponents claim that the officers are exposed to extreme dangers. They have to protect themselves, protect the victims and at the same time, deal with armed criminals whose mission isto escape. This exposes them to dangers which can only be prevented when they too use force. In this article, the author supports the proponents by claiming that for their safety, the safety of the victims and the execution of their mission, the officers should be permitted to use their weapons to make an arrest when they are obliged to do so.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The police officers should be allowed to use weapons to arrest for their safety and those of the victims involved. The officers are human beings with families and relatives. Moreover, the officers are parents who have responsibilities for their families and children. As a result, the safety of the officers cannot be taken for granted. The loss of their lives will not only affect the country as a whole but will be heartbreak for the families and friend. Further, these families may be exposed to extreme financial constraints in case they lose the breadwinner. It is, thus, paramount for the officers to protect themselves even while offering services. In most cases, these officers face dangerous criminals, well-armed with deadly weapons. Such situation is sometimes made worse when the criminals have in their custody innocent citizens who are neither armed or training in any military manner. The officers must ensure that the lives of the innocent citizens are safe. When they are prohibited from using weapons, then it would be a suicidal mission for the officers to handle a person with a gun cocked with bare hands. In this case, the law risks not only the life of the individual officers but also the safety of the people under custody. Such law will lead to massive loss of lives of the police officers and victims of crime scenes.
Furthermore, the officers must be allowed to use weapons to protect the community, by bringing the unsafe action or unlawful act into safety and under their control. The role of a police officer is to have the citizens protected. There are instances where robbers or terrorist attack citizens and shoot a good number of them mercilessly. These are unlawful instances where the citizens need protection, and entirely rely on the officers for their security. In these situations, it would be ridiculous for officers to arrest such criminals through pleading with them, or to use any other means other than firing back. During the unlawful act, there are two probable results. First, if the officers plead with the criminals to peaceful arrest them, more innocent lives will be lost. The offender will continue shooting more people as a way of threatening the officers and the citizens. The second implication is that the officer may attempt the arresting the criminal. During this process, they might end up losing their lives. The officers in these instances are left with no choice. They either watch as the criminal continue butchering people or risk their lives since the law chains them.
In such cases, the situation can be brought under control if they have the authority to use the weapons they possess. In this case, the officers will be allowed to shoot back at the criminals. The officers are well trained on how to handle guns. Their experience is far much better than most criminals. Using the weapons, the crimes will be overwhelmed by the experienced officers. Finally, the officers will get a good chance of nailing such criminals and arresting them. They shall have protected the citizens, their lives and executing their role as officers.
Further, the officers must be allowed to use weapons to arrest in circumstances where the criminals have refused to cooperate with them, and want to escape. The mission of criminals and the police officers are entirely different. The officers usually are desperate to arrest the criminals so that the law can take its course. There work usually made challenging by the criminals’ mission which is to escape from the crime scene. The offenders have different ways through which they may execute their mission. First, they may choose to run away from the officers. Such situations are normally tricky. The officers have to do what they can to ensure that the criminal does not escape. In this situation, it would be very difficult for the officers to chase the criminals and arrest them. Notably, some of the criminal customarily set a trap for the officers. They run towards the areas where they know their colleagues are waiting for them. In such circumstances, the officers may find themselves cornered by the criminals, where any result is possible (Cook, Parker & Pollack, 2015). The officers must, thus, use weapons to demobilize the criminal for an easy arrest. On the other hand, the criminal may use weapons as an escaping mechanism. In this sense, they may fire back at the officers to ensure they keep them at a distance to allow them chance to escape. In such instances, the officers must use weapons too to ensure that they counterattack and give no space for the criminals to escape. This will facilitate an easy arrest of the offender.
The opponents claim that permitting the police officers to use weapons to make an arrest puts the general public at risks. They argue that the officers have jeopardized their authorities to use the guns. Their primary argument is that most people are shot by the officers even when they are less armed. The shooting rate has scored high, and the public is concerned. Allowing these people to use guns will make them vulnerable to killing the innocent people. The critics also argue that police should arrest people but not to use gun shot them since not all people who make mistakes are criminal (Fryer, 2016). They claim that there are instances where insane or mental disturbed people involved in wrongdoings. In such case, shooting them is not the best options. The officer must find the best way of arresting these people so that, they may know if such individual were mentally sober as they were acting criminally. These arguments are paramount as far as the discussion concerning this topic is on the air. However, they are much concerned with the safety of the criminals, ignoring the safety of the officers and the victims. The officers, as well as victims too, need protection and thus must be considered.
In summary, the police officer deal with dangerous criminals and situations which put their lives at risks, they must be allowed to use weapons to arrest in such cases. Allowing the police officers to use guns to make an arrest does protect not only the lives of the individual officers but also the victims of the crime scenes. The opposes claim that giving police officers chance to use weapons during an arrest is allowing them to kill people with less consideration. However, the points raised by critics are overprotecting he criminals and exposing the officers and crime victims to dangers. These points need to be given less consideration.
References
Cook, P. J., Parker, S. T., & Pollack, H. A. (2015). Sources of guns to dangerous people: What we learn by asking them. Preventive Medicine , 79 , 28-36.
Fryer Jr, R. G. (2016). An empirical analysis of racial differences in police use of force (No. w22399). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Terrill, W., & Paoline III, E. A. (2017). Police use of less lethal force: Does administrative policy matter?. Justice Quarterly , 34 (2), 193-216.
