The work of police officers is driven by priorities, namely the need to preserve order in the community and the necessity to avoid harm to people (Alpert, 2004, p. 38; Kania, 2008). The case that will be analyzed shows that sometimes these priorities can often be a conflict with one another. This paper is aimed at discussing the situation when a police officer had to address an urgent problem while complying with strict regulations that were adopted in the police department.
This situation demonstrates that the rules which regulate the work of law enforcement officers should be specific and clear; otherwise, these professionals will face many legal difficulties and sanctions. This is one of the main arguments that should be discussed in greater detail. This issue is important for understanding many legal aspects.
On the whole, the central issue of this case is the ability to use force as a means of preserving social order. The main question is when and why this coercion can be justified from legal and ethical standpoints. This is the main dilemma that Deputy Raymond Ripley had to resolve while deciding how to respond to the alleged burglary or theft. This is one of the main aspects that can be identified. This dilemma is particularly important if one speaks about the rules according to which a police officer can use force only if he/she has to prevent violent crime. It is possible to say that they significantly limited the authority of this person. Therefore, the work of this person could be more challenging.
One can argue that Raymond Ripley’s actions did not quite comply with the rules according to which the use of force had to be minimized. The problem is that he did not have to prevent the violent crime and he had no sufficient evidence showing that burglary or theft could be taking place. Therefore, his actions may give rise to criticism. This is one of the main aspects that can be identified. Nevertheless, despite this violation, one cannot say that Raymond Ripley should have ended the pursuit. One should take into consideration that the vehicle was driving at a high speed, and the driver could have endangered the lives of other people. This is why the actions of the police officer can partly be acceptable.
Moreover, Ripley should not have stopped his pursuit because the person inside the vehicle might indeed be a criminal, and his/her behavior could have threatened the health and life of others. This is one of the main issues that one should take into account while discussing the actions of Raymond Ripley. Admittedly, he exceeded his authority, but it does not mean that he had to take no action. This view on this dilemma is not accurate because it completely overlooks the necessity to preserve social order.
Another question that should be discussed is the warning shots that Ray Raymond fired. Certainly, he had to signal to the driver that he/she had to stop. Nevertheless, at the same time, he could have provoked this driver and he/she could panic. As a result of this panic, the behavior of this individual could become even more dangerous. Furthermore, according to existing regulations, a police officer can fire at a moving vehicle, only someone can be assaulted by this car (Schroeder & Lombardo, 2004, p. 218). This is one of the risks that should not be overlooked. Therefore, Raymond could have warned the suspect with the help of the loudspeaker. This strategy could be been more productive. This is why the head of the police depart can take disciplinary action against Raymond Ripley.
Provided that, a person, who sits in the car, files a lawsuit against the police department, it is possible to provide several arguments in defense of Raymond Ripley. First all, according to the United States Department of Justice, police officers have the authority to use force when they have to apprehend alleged offenders and when they have to respond to the threats to the community (United States Department of Justice, 2012, unpaged). It should be mentioned that the driver exceeded the speed limitations. Furthermore, this person had to comply with Raymond’s request. Therefore, Raymond Ripley was entitled to use force to respond to the behavior of the driver.
This is one of the issues that people take into consideration when evaluating the actions of the police officer. Apart from that, he had to react almost instantaneously, and under such circumstances, a person can make significant mistakes.
Another argument that can be made is that Raymond warned the driver about the necessity to stop the vehicle. Furthermore, he used a weapon that did not put a threat to the health of the alleged criminal. In particular, one can speak about the use of Tasers which reduces the risk of fatal incidents. These circumstances are important for justifying the actions of Raymond Ripley from an ethical perspective. Finally, it is important to remember that the car was going at a high speed, and Raymond Ripley had to take some action. These are some of the justifications that can be offered. However, the head of the police department should still take disciplinary action against Raymond Ripley because of his shooting. This is one of the most important aspects that should not be neglected.
On the whole, these examples suggest that the rules adopted by the police department need some modification because they seem to be rather vague. The problem is that they do not contain any examples of those cases when an officer should use force. For instance, the policy-makers agreed on the use of force when circumstances warranted it. Nevertheless, these rules do not provide step-by-step instructions that law enforcement officers should follow. This is the major limitation of these guidelines. Provided that this problem is not addressed, a great number of controversies will arise, and police officers can face significant challenges when responding to various urgent situations. The case of Raymond Ripley was only one of these cases, but they can be more significant controversies.
This discussion shows that the use of force can be one of the most contested questions that law enforcement officers should be aware of. As it has been said before, they should minimize the possible threats to the safety of the community, but at the same time, they need to justify the use of force. In this case, much attention should be paid to the rules that regulate their work. These rules should be explicitly stated; otherwise, many conflicts can take place. Besides, in some cases, they may be reluctant to intervene only because they can be afraid of potential lawsuits. These are the main dangers that should be addressed.
Reference List
Alpert, G. (2004). Understanding Police Use of Force: Officers, Suspects, and Reciprocity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kania, R. (2008). Managing criminal justice organizations: An introduction. Newark: Lexis Nexis Matthew Bender.
Schroeder, D., & Lombardo, F. (2004). Police Officer Exam. New York: Barron’s Educational Series.
The United States Department of Justice. Use of Force. Web.