LAW ENFORCEMENT AND USE OF FORCE POLICIES
Federal and State statutes in the US permits law enforcement agencies to enforce the law and order and to increase public safety.
Major crowd violence in US history, (example Los Angeles, Ferguson, Dallas), requires major preparedness and learning from their experience and the experience of other countries such as Britain, Israel and South Africa.
We learn from the Dallas event that a large amount of firearms in the hands of individuals with extreme views and the existence of anti-establishment groups motivated by extreme ideas concerning national, ethnic, and socioeconomic philosophies, only strengthen the following conclusions:
- Every minor public protest or disturbance can potentially get escalated into a live fire deadly scenario.
- Law enforcement personnel must review their use of force policies, riot control protocols and train periodically for these kinds of events. It seems that the number of these events are on the rise.
- Saving human lives and seeking de-escalation should always be a priority.
- It is not always possible to stop a riot (planned or unplanned): it may be that there is no will or it is impossible to de-escalate the situation. Law enforcement should develop practical plans to deal with crowd violence so they will be prepared to act accordingly in any given situation.
Visit www.isitrainingcenter.com for further information.
Vice President
8 年Interesting read! I could not discern a conclusion as to the difference of one right or another. Do we have both the right to bear arms and the right of public assembly. If so what laws are being broken? The question is being posed due to the fact that the first two words of the article infers "Law Enforcement". Therefore I must ostensibly question the need for enforcement, if there are no laws being broken.