Use of force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The use of force to settle conflicts is much debated in theory and in practice (see moral
philosophy, ethics).

When a conflict is viewed as being between parties having the same standing, observers
often recommend the use of negotiation or other "conflict resolution" techniques.

When a conflict is viewed as being between a law-breaker and a law-enforcer, observers

tend to side with the enforcer (but with important exceptions).

Analysis of conflicts, and of when and where it is legitimate for an involved (or
intervening) party to use force to settle it, quickly becomes complicated.

Contents
[hide]
 1 Military and police
o 1.1 Use of force continuum
 2 Ordinary life
o 2.1 Example
o 2.2 Citizen's arrest
 3 Controversies

 4 See also

[edit] Military and police

A use of force doctrine is employed by police forces, as well as soldiers on guard duty,
to regulate the actions of police and guards. The aim of such a doctrine is to balance
security needs with ethical concerns for the rights and well-being of intruders or suspects.
In the event that members of the public are injured, this may give rise to issues of self-
defense as a justification. In the event of death, this may be a justifiable homicide.

U.S. soldiers on guard duty are given a "use of force briefing" by the sergeant of the
guard before being assigned to their post.

"The only difference between lawful force for police and civilians is that peace officers
are not given the option of fleeing the scene to avoid confrontation." [1]
Indeed, soldiers on guard duty will be severely punished for "abandoning their post" if
they leave before being "properly relieved".

For the English law on the use of force by police officers and soldiers in the prevention of
crime, see Self-defence in English law. The Australian position on the use of troops for
civil policing is set out by Michael Hood in Calling Out the Troops: Disturbing Trends
and Unanswered Questions [2] and, for comparative purposes, see *Keebine-Sibanda,
Malebo J. & Sibanda, Omphemetse S. "Use of Deadly Force by the South African Police
Services Re-visited". [3].

[edit] Use of force continuum

Main article: Use of force continuum

The use of force may be standardized by a use of force continuum, which presents
guidelines as to the degree of force appropriate in a given situation. One source identifies
five key steps, from least amount of force to greatest.[4]

1. Presence
2. Verbalization
3. Empty hand control
4. Intermediate weapons (e.g., chemical, electronic or impact weapons)
5. Deadly Force (any force likely to cause permanent injury or death)

[edit] Ordinary life

When simply going about one's business, if he encounters a criminal bent on doing him
mischief a citizen may have certain rights of self-defense. These vary considerably with
the society or nation to which one belongs (or visits).

In nearly every culture, it is deemed proper (or even obligatory) to defend one's life
against a prospective murderer. Typically homicide is considered defensible if it is the
only way to prevent one's own murder. In some jurisdictions and circumstances,
however, it is considered a crime to kill an attacker; particularly, if retreat or escape is
possible.

[edit] Example

Suppose somebody breaks into your house at night, while you were sleeping. You hear
him rummaging around, and you figure he's looking for valuables to steal. You cower in
your bedroom, hoping he'll just go away as soon as possible. But then he confronts you
and says, "Give me all the jewels and money, or I'll kill you." If he shows a weapon or
otherwise convinces you of the seriousness of the threat, what will you do?
In some jurisdictions, you are legally permitted to shoot him dead. In other jurisdictions,
this is considered murder. It depends on local laws, which in turn depend on the ethical
ideas underlying that society.

Some persons, notably pacifists, may say, "Go ahead and kill me. You may destroy my
body but not my soul." The Quakers of the 19th century had this attitude.

[edit] Citizen's arrest

Main article: citizen's arrest

Many jurisdictions in the democratic world authorize ordinary citizens to restrain a

suspect until police arrive, or to bring him to the police.

[edit] Controversies
In war time, when dealing with civilian populations, civilized countries have laws which
restrain their forces from using deadly force. In the mid-twentieth century, nearly the
entire civilized world signed a treaty which includes this aspect (see Geneva
Convention).

Civilians must be treated differently than enemy soldiers. They are presumed to be non-
combatants and thus should not be hurt, except when this is unavoidable.

Controversy arises when it is not clear whether people in civilian areas (or dressed like
civilians) have hostile intent (e.g., saboteurs or infiltrators). A similar problem occurs
when hostile forces operate in the midst of civilians (e.g., firing rockets from an
apartment building).

Most countries forbid their military forces to target civilians deliberately but make
routine exceptions for cases such as:

 soldiers or terrorists dressed as civilians (treated as combatants)

 enemy fire received from a civilian area (local commanders given discretion to
return fire)
 demonstrators turn violent: showing weapons or opening fire (local commanders
given discretion to return fire)

It is very difficult to distinguish between peaceful civilian non-combatants and "hostile

forces". Several well-publicized incidents reflect this difficulty (see No Gun Ri incident,
1996 shelling of Qana).

[edit] See also

 Use of force continuum
  Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force"

Categories: Violence | Problem solving