Ethical Dilemmas in Current Law Enforcement Cases Black Community Rebels in Cincinnati Racial deprivation is one of the most controversial issues of contemporary democratic tendencies. In fact, the evidence of racial contradiction still exists. The events in Cincinnati actually show quite dubious case: ethical basics and law do not coincide. Thomas Timothy was evidently guilty of some traffic rule violation and was attempting to escape. The policeman was chasing him, but some unfinished actions of Thomas provoked the policeman to open fire. It should be noted that in this case a stereotype worked that all black people are willing to commit a crime. As a result, the policeman thought that Thomas has been going to shoot him back. It is quite possible that if Thomas was a white man, the policeman would have not thought about a possibility to be attacked.
The outcome of the case was quite typical. The black community of Cincinnati strongly resented racist behaviour towards representative of their community. In fact, violence provokes violence. Protest turned into a cruel riot and peaceful citizens suffered. Actually, Afro-Americans were taking a revenge, which could be somehow explained ethically, but totally unacceptable by the law. All in all, any police officer should have a careful thought before shooting any running criminal without any respect to his or her colour of skin. As it was said before, chaotic violence is a source for chaotic revenge.
Excessive Force Case at High Court It is hard to argue that in most controversial situations a human matter plays a crucial role. Saucier and Parker acted according to their duty, but in this case it was totally unnecessary. First of all, Katz was suspected on the basis of invalid information. Further, an action of Katz was considered as a dangerous one due to Suicer and Parker’s personal convictions. It is also quite obvious that presence of an important person influenced such proactive behaviour. Being strongly convinced that Katz is guilty, militarists were waiting for a reason to attack. It is explained by a simple military psychology: to react at the first threatening movement of the enemy. In contrast, Katz was not anyhow apologized and was objected to claim about an excessive violence from the side of military forces. Needless to say that such a behaviour has to be apologized both legally and ethically.
It is also obvious that military forces in this area are no longer respected. Moreover, it is possible to suspect them in being bribed by certain politicians because they acted with special precision. Finally, it is to be said that any establishment which has a right to use force against people is supposed to be responsible for its wrong actions.
Seattle Settles Excessive-Force Case Making a physical harm to women is quite strong controversy, especially at days of accepted emancipation. Trends are changing, but women remain to be vulnerable and physically less strong than men, especially police officers. The Seattle case actually presents a typical contradiction between ethical principles and the law. Brittany Beaulieu was definitely drunk and not responsible for her adequate behaviour. Moreover, she was trying to prevent a policeman from doing his primary duty. Hence, there were all grounds for Brittany’s arrest.
Nevertheless, the way Brittany was arrested is totally wrong. First of all, the policemen dealt with an intoxicated woman who is fragile and much weaker than him. Such aggressive behaviour of a woman did not mean a violent response from the side of police officer, who is first of all the male responsible for anyone weaker than him nearby. Taking into consideration a legal aspect, it is to be said that the policeman should react with a relevant force. Brittany evidently was not a dangerous person in this situation, so the police officer should have just subdued her without any excessive force. To sum up, it is necessary to draw a conclusion that police have to use force relevantly to the level of danger, which a criminal represents to peaceful citizens.
The article was written by professional writer Lola Nickson, more her papers you can find simply following the link of https://papers-land.com
Top comments (1)
Yes, you are absolutely right, everyone has the right to life, regardless of its race, skin color, gender and etc. I always look at people when such situations happen and think that if it is possible to protect everyone, I would do it. But all that I can do is give legal assistance. My law office open for everybody paulmankin.com/