Description of the idea: My idea would be to change the confusing mess of what is the current state of the Use of Force Policies. This change not only completely changes some of the policy, but removes the uncertainty and legal gibberish that is embedded within it. Instead of having words like without any doubt, or, reasonably believes, it would now be much more focused on words like: is, or, and has certainly.
With this crucial word change, it completely changes the dynamic of 'what if?' that is in place. This removes the "well it could be this if I argued it well enough" scenarios most officers face.
For now on, the policies would be more focused on protecting life with certainty, regardless of the instrument of harm inflicted from suspects. This new policy is more focused on situational-basis and more focused on circumstances presented to the officer.
Why should this be added? (pros):
What negatives could this have? (cons):
With this crucial word change, it completely changes the dynamic of 'what if?' that is in place. This removes the "well it could be this if I argued it well enough" scenarios most officers face.
For now on, the policies would be more focused on protecting life with certainty, regardless of the instrument of harm inflicted from suspects. This new policy is more focused on situational-basis and more focused on circumstances presented to the officer.
(a) Use of Deadly Force: Deadly force means force that is used against another individual, that is likely to cause serious bodily harm or death to the individual in question. The Use of Deadly force may be used if one or more of the following circumstances exists.
- Self Defence: When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect an officer who reasonably believes himself or herself is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
- Serious Offences: When deadly force reasonably and objectively appears to be necessary to protect the general public from a serious offence. Examples: The subject in question is driving reckless to the point where it is posing an imminent threat to the general public or officers. OR The subject is currently armed with a firearm and the officers believe that without any doubt, the subject will use it.
- Serious Threats: When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to preserve life. This is within threats made in-regards of terroristic actions and similar.
- Explosives or Incendiaries: When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, unauthorised control or possession of explosives or incendiaries that may cause, without any doubt an imminent danger to the general public.
- Apprehension: When deadly force reasonably and justifiably appears to be necessary to apprehend a subject in their escape: that, without any doubt committed a serious felony - Such as (9)2 - Assault with a Deadly Weapon (with the intent to murder) or (9)5 - Murder or the use of (7)8 - Explosives or Incendiaries, where the officers in question reasonably believe, without any doubt that the suspects will do the actions again.
(a) Use of Deadly Force: Deadly force means force that is used against another individual, that is likely to cause serious bodily harm or death to the individual in question. The Use of Deadly Force may be used if one or more of the following circumstances exists.
1. Suspect possesses a weapon or has succeeded in attempting to gain access to a weapon under circumstances indicating an intention to use it against an officer or others.
2. The suspect is armed and is running to gain a tactical advantage of cover.
3. A suspect is inflicting death or serious physical injury, or otherwise incapacitating officers without a deadly weapon, and is demonstrating an intention to do so.
4. The suspect is attempting to escape from the vicinity of a violent confrontation in which the suspect inflicted, or, continues to attempt to inflict death or serious injury.
1. Suspect possesses a weapon or has succeeded in attempting to gain access to a weapon under circumstances indicating an intention to use it against an officer or others.
2. The suspect is armed and is running to gain a tactical advantage of cover.
3. A suspect is inflicting death or serious physical injury, or otherwise incapacitating officers without a deadly weapon, and is demonstrating an intention to do so.
4. The suspect is attempting to escape from the vicinity of a violent confrontation in which the suspect inflicted, or, continues to attempt to inflict death or serious injury.
Why should this be added? (pros):
- Removes all of the confusion in Use of Force policy for all parties, such as Staff, Internal Affairs Investigators, Tactical Firearms Units, or Officer-Involved Shootings.
- Fits and resolves many more situations that are debatable and arguable.
- Does not involve grammar or punctuation that needs doubt to be cleared.
- Section B of the Use of Force Policy would still be enacted, and that would help keep balance for shootings.
What negatives could this have? (cons):
- Current Internal Affairs Investigations would have to apply under the old Use of Force policy, as those violations occurred during the enforcement of that policy.
- Criminal mains would say this is op. Calling it now.
