The use of excessive force by police during arrests is only permitted under specific circumstances, like self-defense or defending colleagues or the public. There is no specific common definition of the “use of force,” but the Office of Justice Programs defines it as the effort needed by law enforcement officers to impel compliance by a resistant person (NIJ, 2020). However, officers often receive direction from their agencies on which situation they should apply force, but there are no universal rules set to guide when an officer can use force. In a threatening case, an officer should respond immediately by using force if necessary. Therefore, situation awareness is significant, and law enforcement officers are trained to weigh circumstances that require the application of force to regain control of a scenario. Most often, time is a crucial variable in assessing when an officer decides to apply force.
On August 16, 2014, an off-duty law enforcement officer (Gary Witherspoon) used a neck restraint on a woman (Espinosa) after refusing to stop filming an investigation. The incident occurred in a Corpus Christi parking after the officer asked Ms. Espinosa to produce her ID and stop filming as they investigated a late-night fight incident ( Rodman, 2016) . However, after Espinosa refused to stop filming and declined to produce an ID, Officer Witherspoon placed her in a chokehold. A statement that was released later by the Corpus Christi police department indicated that officer Witherspoon and his colleague first questioned Espinosa as they believed she was involved in the fight that they were investigating and not for filming them. However, in her statement, Espinosa declined the police department claims. She was not involved in any fight, but she was in the scene because the officers would not leave the Corpus Christi parking ( Rodman, 2016) . The police department took disciplinary measures by asking the officer involved to resign.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
I believe that the Corpus Christi police department's measure was a lenient one as stern actions were supposed to be taken against the officer. The law enforcement officers are allowed to apply justifiable force to take an individual during an arrest. For example, if Ms. Espinosa resisted by momentarily attempting to run away, it would have been reasonable for Officer Witherspoon to apply reasonable force. However, this was not the case. Since the officer used extreme or unnecessary force, he should have been subjected to severe repercussions like civil liability and criminal prosecution. There are several parameters that the courts can use to determine whether a law enforcement officer used unreasonable force. For example, the court can assess the crime’s severity, whether the suspected was resisting arrest or if the suspect posed a threat to the public or officers. Based on these parameters, it evident that the amount of force that a law enforcement officer can use during an arrest is a subject of much controversy and concern. Law enforcement officers have to be much cautious at the time of arrest when they are using reasonable force to protect the public and themselves. Additionally, human rights groups have asked police officers to consider the amount of force they apply when dealing with ethnic groups or racial minorities ( Garner et al., 2018) . The human rights group claims that law enforcement officers often overstep the bounds of necessity when dealing with minority groups.
In this case, Officer Witherspoon used excessive force. The term excessive force is used primarily to refer to conditions that the police exceed the amount of force required against a subject to resolve a situation or protect the public from danger ( Bozeman et al., 2018) . Therefore, when a law enforcement officer applies excessive force, it is termed police brutality. The United States constitution has given every citizen the right to be protected against police brutality as articulated in the Fourth Amendment Act. Also, in the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, citizens are protected against cruel and unusual punishment ( Garner et al., 2018) . More so, excessive force is only applicable as a last resort. If police officers decide to use force on a fleeing person, they can only do so when they believe that the suspect poses an immediate and substantial risk of severe physical harm or death to other people or police officers ( Obasogie & Newman, 2017) . It is also significant to understand that police brutality and use of force apply to situations where deadly force is utilized and applicable where unwarranted and unreasonable excessive use of force leads to injuries to a victim.
Based on this definition, it is clear that the officer overstepped by choke holding Ms. Espinoza. She was not a threat to the officers and did not run. The situation in which the police officer was involved was not a threat to society or his life. Although it is the officer's responsibility to protect the security, life, and liberty of individuals, as articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( Obasogie & Newman, 2017) , the officer applied an aggressive approach in this case. Moreover, although the supreme court acknowledges that the situations in which law enforcement officers are involved in while handling arrest cases do carry some degree of physical threat, this scenario did not pose a physical threat to the officers. Besides, police officers are trained to use gradual tactics to diffuse a situation before deciding to use deadly force. Therefore, in spite of Officer Witherspoon being trained to deescalate conflict, he engaged in poor and aggressive methods to serve unreasonable measures. He applied empty-hand control by using physical body force to choke an innocent lady who had no weapons or resisted an arrest. In the case of Ms. Espinosa showed no intention of hurting or harassing the police officer.
If I were to handle this situation, there are several things that I would have done differently. First, I would have approached Ms. Espinosa and explained what was happening, and there was no need to film. Secondly, I would have permitted her to leave the Corpus Christi parking since her presence in the scene was making things worse. If she refuses to stop filming us or leave the place, I would have told her that I had no desire to engage in a physical confrontation. I would have asked her to cooperate for her security and to give us a conducive environment to conduct our investigation. If the situation turned worse, I would have reported it first to my senior before deciding to apply force ( Bozeman et al., 2018) . Using a chokehold is unnecessary for an unarmed lady; therefore, I would have asked her peacefully to stop the filming.
In conclusion, it is essential to note that law enforcement officers are only permitted to use excessive force in certain circumstances like self-defense and when defending other people. However, police officers must always receive direction from their agencies on which situation they should apply force as there are no universal rules set to guide officers on when to apply excessive force. Therefore, in Ms. Espinoza’s case, the police officer used excessive force as she did not resist arrest or try to run. The officer should have used gradual tactics to diffuse the situation before deciding to chokehold her. In such situations, the u se of excessive force should be applied as a last resort.
References
Bozeman, W. P., Stopyra, J. P., Klinger, D. A., Martin, B. P., Graham, D. D., Johnson III, J. C., ... & Vail, S. J. (2018). Injuries associated with police use of force. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , 84 (3), 466-472.
Garner, J. H., Hickman, M. J., Malega, R. W., & Maxwell, C. D. (2018). Progress toward national estimates of police use of force. PLOS ONE , 13 (2), e0192932.
National Institute of Justice (NIJ). (2020). Overview of police use of force. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/overview-police-use-force
Obasogie, O. K., & Newman, Z. (2017). The futile fourth amendment: Understanding police excessive force doctrine through an empirical assessment of Graham v. Connor. Nw. UL Rev. , 112 , 1465.
Rodman, A. (2016). Filming the Police: An Interference or a Public Service. Mary's LJ , 48 , 145.
