The use of force by law enforcers is a volatile topic, which draws sharp opinions whenever during discussions. It has been argued in several quarters that the use of force is illegal, irrespective of the magnitude applied by officers on duty. Activists have executed mass protests on several occasions, seeking legal clarification on the above-mentioned topic.
Public police
The law states explicitly that it is legal to apply reasonable force, which is indispensable when making an arrest. This has been the bone of contention, due to the ambiguity associated with the term reasonable. It should be noted that legal provisions of the United Nations prohibit the use of firearms by servicemen, except in instances of self-defense. This is mandatory due to the sanctity of life; hence, all attempts to violate this should be thwarted. This provision extends to the protection of the lives of civilians; especially when protecting innocent persons from looming death.
The use of firearms is also allowed in case persons are guilty of resisting arrest. Whenever a culprit resorts to the use of force in the course of an arrest, the officer on duty is allowed to use his firearm in a bid to suppress the situation. In case the offender escapes the scene of a crime upon apprehension, the officer may also use force in a bid to restore order to the situation (Community Oriented Policing, 2010).
An executive decree, which is issued by the head of state or government in response to a crisis, may sanction the use of force. This order may allow the enforcers to use brutality while preserving civility. It should be noted that these applications are governed by statutes, and are enforced in a systematic sequence of dealings. All in all, the indiscriminate use of force is illegal. International and local laws allow for a measured application of the same. The deliberate and mortal use of the devices is allowed under extreme conditions, where no other option was viable.
Private security
It is commonplace that private security officers encourage persons to behave in the desired way using their badges and uniform. They lack the lawful authority required to restrain or apprehend persons. This implies that their duties are confined to observation and relaying of information. Most of them are often armed with basic weapons, like pepper spray, firearms, or batons. Their operations are governed with a gamut of force, which refers to a sliding scale of officer participation that is mandatory to protect the property or safety of another. Their order of operation includes officer availability, oral messaging, holds and restraints, availability of chemical agents, provisional incapacitation, and the application of lethal force (Dempsey, 2007, p. 93).
In the event, these operations are not fruitful the officer is required to converse with the offender in a bid to reduce tension. This may happen on several occasions, since the presence of a uniformed officer at the scene may not suffice in reducing the tension. It should be noted that the use of handcuffs and batons is permitted in case the offender becomes violent. This implies that all measures should be enforced to subdue the offender and guarantee the well-being of all persons in the environment. Summarily, the use of lethal force is only permitted when personal lives are at stake.
It should be noted that all jurisdictions provide for the registration of all officials prior to their recognition as valid officials. They should also have proper training and education. Since they lack law-enforcement privileges, persons opt when to follow their commands. They have similar arrest privileges as regular citizens; hence they will lack immunity from prosecution in case they use physical force during their operations (Dempsey, 2007, p. 93).
References
Community Oriented Policing Services. (2010). Use of force. United States Department of Justice. Web.
Dempsey, J. (2007). Introduction to private security. Californian, CA: Cengage Learning.