Several concerns have risen regarding the policies that determine the use of force within the law enforcement department. Constructive perspectives, negative concerns, and inconclusive opinions regarding the use of force have been diverse as far as the views on this policy of the public and that of the field of law enforcement. For a long time, it has been very challenging to determine the correct definition of a justified force a sit regards to a law enforcement officer (Gerber & Jackson, 2017) . Many studies that reflect on police use of force have been done, which has not conclusively determined the frameworks of using justified force. It is significant to determine whether the justified amount of force on each distinct situation, say, suspected individuals.
The use of justified force is about the right that individual or authority has to deal with conflicts or resist specific actions by considering measures. The measures applied are either intended to deter an individual to refrain from a certain course of action, or physically be involved in stopping them. The law enforcement officials have been given the authority to use justified force and have the capacity to apply the force (Worden, 2015). The use of the justified force is one of the most misunderstood authorities given law enforcement officers by the government (Van Craen & Jackson, 2017) . Law enforcement officers themselves feel that the use of justified force would imply taking up actions to calm an unbearable situation so that it is managed at the end of the day.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Early law enforcement officers were engaged in an unfavorable environment that provided the platform to use force. Created at a period of spiraling instances of violence and demonstrations were a common phenomenon and social divisions characterized the cities because of competition, the state government in Chicago and other states, encountered disheartening tasks of calming these situations down (Flanders & Welling, 2015) . They were required to ensure order, yet they have deprived legitimacy so that they were left with partisanism and often corrupting the ethical standards to cope with the rising situations (Gerber & Jackson, 2017) . They were not encouraged in their institutional framework where they were motivation to utilize their authority and they could be seen openly exercising their powers for political reasons like protecting their patrons and suppressing any riots. In the entire of this time, American law enforcement officers struggled to earn respect and exercise their power in the streets.
There are many understandings of what is referred to as using a justified amount of force. This can depend on whether one is using beanbags guns, batons, or tear gas. Whenever the law enforcement officers apply these items improperly or in an excessive manner, they can be construed as use of excessive amount of force, and thus not justified (Flanders & Welling, 2015) . Nonetheless, because the items are not lethal, they could be interpreted as reasonable in some contexts. Thus, the justified force that is used by a law enforcement officer does not entirely hinge on him, but his discretion and judgment. Each circumstance can potentially engage the use of force is distinct, and one cannot be assumed on another. Situations may be the same as appearing to be related in some way, but they are not in essence similar. Since situations differ from the disparities in individuals, regions, perspectives, and cultural backgrounds, to determine that a particular force is justified could be a challenging task. Worden (2015) indicates that law enforcement officers should not be granted the power to apply force, regardless of the situations that they find themselves. He emphasizes that everything could have a harmonious solution that has peaceful recommendations that would not lead to a person sustaining injuries or perishing. However, some scholars insist that some circumstances are very critical so that force is not just necessary, but needful, only injuries or unmerited deaths should be minimized.
When dealing with a particular situation, law enforcement officers have numerous force options that they can select. Law enforcement officers have been given the power to utilize both physical and mental force to counter crimes and capture criminals. In some instances, criminals have cooperated during an arrest, such that the officer has no need to apply a physical force because simply their presence is sufficient to make them gain control (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015) . In cases where the criminals are stubborn, the initial steps would be for the office to make commanding statements, followed by capturing the criminal by using physical force. Beyond this stage, if need be, the officer has no option to use non-lethal weapons like chemical spray, or baton (Gerber & Jackson, 2017) . The final step will be the law enforcement officer using deadly force on the criminal. However, this last step should be avoided except when the circumstances are seriously unbearable.
A major cause of unjustified use of force by police officers that would include them being brutal is the notion that people bear that police officers are “soldiers” in their mission to stop crime. Criminals in their defense feel that the officers could do some things that could not be permitted in normal circumstances. According to Worden ((2015), many officers also have a war mentality because they are steered by politicians, who indicate that tough law enforcement officers are capable of containing crime. Many suspects are always willing to cooperate with the officer, but there are those that rebel and resist, who often incite a forcible responsible for the law enforcement officers. In some instances, the claims that police officers use such force are just untrue because maybe the people misunderstood what could justify lawful force (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015) . In some cases, the police officers use force since they want attention and to restore their authority. The predicament is a result of lacking a well-defined agreement that describes the legitimate or justified force that the law enforcement officer can execute.
It is very challenging for the law enforcement officer to balance between dealing with suspects amicably when they are placed in an awkward situation. Flanders and Welling (2015) determined that law enforcement officers come up with decisions and make choices on the grounds of the ensuing situations that they are witnessing without regard to set policies and procedures, just by relying on their judgment, it is referred to as discretion. Discretion grants the police the freedom to choose or prioritize whether force is needed or not, within a specific framework. For instance, it will be infeasible for the law enforcement officer to brutally beat a man that was just stealing from a store (Gerber & Jackson, 2017) . However, if the robber was abusing someone as they rob, the officer is left with no option to respond by force. This would be entirely an evident threat of danger to the victim, the officer or the people around. Thus, the officer would exercise force at his discretion, because if he spares this moment, even the public may be frustrated with them.
In situations where the officer’s initial application of force is triggered and lawful, the variation between making a legal arrest and illegally infringing the civil rights within the motivated attack procedures is moderately thin. There is no point in which they meet or are in a buffer zone. The situation is either understandable or illegal (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015) . One more baton beating, push or control can increase the chances of the officer to be penalized or even captured for prison. Excessive use and inappropriate use of force, the very significant factor are come up with laws that are enforceable so that there are no chances to give an excuse. The officers are keen to follow these standard rules so that they do not get involved in the same criminal activities they should be condemning. The police should be motivated only to use force within a lawful framework. Lethal force may not just be used when the officer feels like or when it is not needed.
The Continuum scale has been taken to be among the most preferred structures to guarantee the proper level of force the law enforcement officer uses. Whenever the officer considers a continuum determining the use of force, they have clear guidelines that dictate to them the amount of force that they need to apply to resist or counter the criminal in a particular circumstance (Van Craen & Jackson, 2017) . The continuum scale was intended to generally guide the officers so that they confront or make an arrest to the criminals utilizing force within the dictated dimension. The law enforcement officers are able to utilize the proper level of force accordingly as they do their duties (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015) . Therefore, the scale is instrumental in helping the officers to apply the law and the laws set by the department to use force in the required circumstances, spelling out the utilization of force and giving testimonies in a court when wanted. The frameworks provided by the scale is critical in clarification to both the law enforcement officers and the citizens themselves, regarding the use of force by the officers against threatening situations.
In conclusion, law enforcement officers are required to use a justified level of force when countering dangerous and unlikely situations. The officers may be presented with not much time to assess the situation and decide the appropriate reaction. Effective training and having proper guidelines will enable the law enforcement officer to respond and tackle situations effectively and in time. It has also been determined that the main result of officers using force is the notion that officers are soldiers in the midst of a war against crime. The officers have to utilize force to deal with the situations as they arise and provide the best appropriate outcome.
References
Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of quantitative criminology , 31 (3), 509-535.
Flanders, C., & Welling, J. (2015). Police Use of Deadly Force: State Statutes 30 Years After Garner . Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. , 35 , 109.
Gerber, M. M., & Jackson, J. (2017). Justifying violence: legitimacy, ideology and public support for police use of force. Psychology, Crime & Law , 23 (1), 79-95.
Van Craen, M., & Skogan, W. G. (2017). Officer support for use of force policy: The role of fair supervision . Criminal justice and behavior , 44 (6), 843-861.
Worden, R. E. (2015). The ‘causes’ of police brutality: theory and evidence on police use of force . ER Maguire, & DE Duffee, Criminal Justice Theory: Explaining The Nature and Behavior of Criminal Justice , 2 , 149-204.
