Use of force in the context of "Rules of engagement"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about Use of force in the context of "Rules of engagement"

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Use of force

The use of force, in the context of law enforcement, may be defined as "the amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject." Multiple definitions exist according to context and purpose. In practical terms, use of force amounts to any combination of threatened or actual force used for a lawful purpose, e.g. to effect arrest; defend oneself or another person; or to interrupt a crime in progress or prevent an imminent crime. Depending on the jurisdiction, legal rights of this nature might be recognized to varying degrees for both police officers and non-sworn individuals; and may be accessible regardless of citizenship. Canada's Criminal Code, for example, provides in section 494 for arrest in certain circumstances by "any one."

Use of force doctrines can be employed by law enforcement officers and military personnel, who are on guard duty. The aim of such doctrines is to balance the needs of security with ethical concerns for the rights and well-being of intruders or suspects. Injuries to civilians tend to focus attention on self-defense as a justification and in the event of death, the notion of justifiable homicide. Sir Robert Peel has stated: “Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.”

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<

👉 Use of force in the context of Rules of engagement

Rules of engagement (ROE) are the internal rules or directives afforded military forces (including individuals) that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which the use of force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied.

They provide authorization for and/or limits on, among other things, the use of force and the employment of certain specific capabilities. In some nations, articulated ROE have the status of guidance to military forces, while in other nations, ROE constitute lawful command. Rules of engagement do not normally dictate how a result is to be achieved, but will indicate what measures may be unacceptable.

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

Use of force in the context of Law enforcement organization

A law enforcement agency (LEA) is any government agency responsible for law enforcement within a specific jurisdiction through the employment and deployment of law enforcement officers and their resources. The most common type of law enforcement agency is the police, but various other forms exist as well, including agencies that focus on specific legal violation, or are organized and overseen by certain authorities. They typically have various powers and legal rights to allow them to perform their duties, such as the power of arrest and the use of force.

↑ Return to Menu

Use of force in the context of Monopoly on violence

In political philosophy, a monopoly on violence or monopoly on the legal use of force is the property of a polity that is the only entity in its jurisdiction to legitimately use force, and thus the supreme authority of that area.

While the monopoly on violence as the defining conception of the state was first described in sociology by Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919), the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force is a core concept of modern public law, which goes back to French jurist and political philosopher Jean Bodin's 1576 work Les Six livres de la République and English philosopher Thomas Hobbes's 1651 book Leviathan. Weber claims that the state is the "only human Gemeinschaft which lays claim to the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. As such, states can resort to coercive means such as incarceration, expropriation, humiliation, and death threats to obtain the population's compliance with its rule and thus maintain order. However, this monopoly is limited to a certain geographical area, and in fact this limitation to a particular area is one of the things that defines a state." In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.

↑ Return to Menu

Use of force in the context of Law enforcement agency powers

A law enforcement agency (LEA) has powers, which other government subjects do not, to enable the LEA to undertake its responsibilities. These powers are generally in one of six forms:

The types of powers and law exemptions available to a LEA vary from country to country.

↑ Return to Menu

Use of force in the context of Police brutality

Police brutality is the excessive and unwarranted use of force by law enforcement against an individual or a group. It is an extreme form of police misconduct and is a civil rights violation. Police brutality includes, but is not limited to, asphyxiation, beatings, shootings, improper takedowns, racially-motivated violence and unwarranted use of tasers.

↑ Return to Menu

Use of force in the context of Distinction (law)

Distinction (principle of distinction) is a principle under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, whereby belligerents must distinguish between combatants and protected civilians. Combatant in this instance means persons entitled to directly participate in hostilities and thus are not afforded immunity from being directly targeted in situations of armed conflict. Protected civilian in this instance means civilians who are enemy nationals or neutral citizens outside of the territory of a belligerent power.

Article 51.3 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions explains that “civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.” Distinction, proportionality, and precaution are important factors in assessing military necessity in that the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated" by an attack on a military objective.

↑ Return to Menu

Use of force in the context of Baton (law enforcement)

A baton (also truncheon, nightstick, billy club, billystick, cosh, lathi, or simply stick) is a roughly cylindrical club made of wood, rubber, plastic, or metal. It is carried as a compliance tool and defensive weapon by law-enforcement officers, correctional staff, security guards and military personnel. The name baton comes from the French bâton (stick), derived from Old French Baston, from Latin bastum.

As a weapon a baton may be used defensively (to block) or offensively (to strike, jab, or bludgeon), and it can aid in the application of armlocks. The usual striking or bludgeoning action is not produced by a simple and direct hit, as with an ordinary blunt object, but rather by bringing the arm down sharply while allowing the truncheon to pivot nearly freely forward and downward, so moving its tip much faster than its handle. Batons are also used for non-weapon purposes such as breaking windows to free individuals trapped in a vehicle, or turning out a suspect's pockets during a search (as a precaution against sharp objects).

↑ Return to Menu

Use of force in the context of Extrajudicial killing

An extrajudicial killing (also known as an extrajudicial execution or an extralegal killing) is the deliberate killing of a person without the lawful authority granted by a judicial proceeding. It typically refers to government authorities, whether lawfully or unlawfully, targeting specific people for death, which in authoritarian regimes often involves political, trade union, dissident, religious and social figures. The term is typically used in situations that imply the human rights of the victims have been violated. Deaths caused by legal police actions (such as self defense) or legal warfighting on a battlefield are generally not included, even though military and police forces are often used for killings seen by critics as illegitimate. The label "extrajudicial killing" has also been applied to organized, lethal enforcement of extralegal social norms by non-government actors, including lynchings and honor killings.

↑ Return to Menu