By Jyoti Belur

Extrajudicial executions by law enforcement officers have blighted parts of the world for generations, but criminological coverage has been superficial and selective. It has often been presented as a problem specific to countries associated with military rule, dictatorial regimes and colonial heritage. Permission to Shoot?: Police Use of Deadly Force in Democracies brings a new dimension to the problem of police abuse of deadly force by concentrating on the social and political settings in India and the United States, both large democracies and vibrant superpowers. The research in the book is based on primary sources—interviews with police officers of varying ranks: with those who are involved in the killings; with those who facilitate such operations, and with those who are mute spectators. The book deals with universal, fundamental themes such as: • Why is it that in a democratic country the abuse of police powers can appear to be overtly and tacitly encouraged? • What motivational techniques and justifications are used to override social norms governing moral conduct, centring on the sector of society mandated to use deadly force against civilians? • What makes ordinary, decent human beings do horrible things? Permission to Shoot? seeks to provide broad guidelines and recommendations for reforms in policing policy and practice. The research peels back the opaque communication that often surrounds this issue, but more than that it shows how that kind of communication acts to support the practice itself.

New York: Springer, 2010. 226p.

By Scot Wortley, Akwasi Owusu-Bempah, Erick Laming and Carae Henry

Police use of force is a crucially important issue. It directly engages with issues of public safety and the safety of law enforcement officers. However, when done improperly, police use of force can cause the unnecessary death or serious injury of civilians, undermine public trust in the police, and compromise the legitimacy of the entire criminal justice system. Finally, police use of force can erode social cohesion and contribute to radicalization, riots and other social control issues. Unfortunately, despite its importance, police use of force has been subject to surprisingly little empirical research––especially in the Canadian context. The following report attempts to address this gap. The authors of this report were retained by the Canadian Criminal Justice Association (CCJA) to examine police use of force in Canada. The project, funded by Public Safety Canada, addresses several important research questions: 1) How often do the police in Canada use physical force against civilians? 2) Is police use of force more common in some police jurisdictions than others? 3) Has use of force increased or decreased over the past ten years? 4) What regions of the country have witnessed the greatest declines in police use of force? What policies or practices contributed to these declines? 5) What are best practices with respect to police use of force? How can use of force be reduced while simultaneously ensuring public safety and the safety of police officers? 6) What is the state of Canadian research on police use of force? How can data collection and research on police use of force be improved?

Ottawa: Canadian Criminal Justice Association, 2021. 150p.

By Michael R. Smith, Robert J. Kaminski, Geoffrey P. Alpert, Lorie A. Fridell, John MacDonald, and Bruce Kubu

Findings show that the use of physical force and hands-on control increase the risk of injury to officers and citizens. Increasing levels of suspect resistance were associated with an increased risk of injury to both officers and suspects. Regarding the use of pepper spray by officers, the multiagency analysis indicated that its use reduced the probability of injury to suspects by 70 percent. For officers, the use of pepper spray increased the probability of injury by 21 to 39 percent. Regarding the use of conducted electrical devices (CEDs), they significantly reduced the probability of injuries, after controlling for other types of force and resistance. Aside from officer force and suspect resistance variables, few other factors correlated with injury outcomes. In the multiagency models, male suspects were twice as likely as females to be injured in a use-of-force event. The presence of a male suspect slightly increased the risk of injury to officers compared to female suspects. In Seattle, WA, where officer gender was available for inclusion in the models, female officers were more than twice as likely as male officers to be injured in use-of-force events. The study used a nationally representative survey of U.S. law enforcement agencies to provide an overview of how less-lethal force technologies, training, and policies are linked to use-of-force events. Data from three agencies were analyzed separately in order to identify individual and situational predictors of injuries to officers and citizens during use-of-force events. Use-of-force records from 12 police agencies were combined and analyzed, and a longitudinal analysis was conducted in order to determine the effect on injury rates of the adoption of the Taser by 2 police agencies.

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2011, 172p.

By University of Chicago Law School - Global Human Rights Clinic

This Report is being published in the midst of a long series of horrifying incidents of police abuse of power in the United States. The deaths of George Floyd, Lacquan McDonald, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Ahmaud Arbery, Tony McDade, Regis Korchinski-Paquet, Breonna Taylor and many others, have echoed throughout the communities of this nation and prompted protests across the country. The video and testimonies from these incidents provide grim illustrations of the power law enforcement officers have over the people they are sworn to serve and protect, and the deadly consequences when they abuse that power. Society vests law enforcement with the responsibility to protect public safety and enforce the law when necessary. For these reasons, and these reasons only, law enforcement officers are granted the immense power to use force, including lethal force. This authority—state sanctioned violence—necessarily comes with limits and obligations to ensure those who enforce the law do not abuse it. These limits and obligations require that police use their power in a manner that protects and serves the entire community that has vested them with this privilege. The exercise of this authority also requires accountability when abuses occur. Without accountability, state sanctioned violence is nothing but the exercise of arbitrary brute force, a common tool of tyrannical and despotic governments.

Chicago: University of Chicago Law School - Global Human Rights Clinic. 2020. 105p.

By Jonas Hansson, Miguel Inzunza and Isabelle Stjerna Doohan

From an international perspective, recent years have seen an increase in the use of conducted energy weapons (CEWs), which are used to control potentially dangerous and uncooperative people. In 2019 the Norwegian National Police Directorate launched a two-year trial of CEWs in daily police work. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the National Police Directorate’s CEW trial and to explore the public’s perceptions of police use of CEWs. The current study found that CEWs are mainly used against individuals who are mentally unstable and exhibit aggressive and dangerous behaviour. The findings showed that CEWs fill the gap between pepper spray or batons and firearms and complement other forcible means. The findings from the interviews showed that the officers could resolve the situations before the introduction of CEWs, but with CEWs they could do so with less intrusive force and a lower risk of injury. … The citizen survey results indicate that citizens believe police officers can be trusted with decisions related to the use of force. The survey also showed that citizens who had received some information on CEWs were significantly more positive towards CEWs than those who had no information. Further, the group with information on CEWs also stated that they would feel more secure if police in their vicinity were equipped with CEWs

Umeå, Sweden: Umea University, 2021. 59p.

By National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Injury and death from use of excessive force by police officers remain a common concern in countries across the globe. Despite local, national, and international attempts to legislate and provide guidance for police use of force, there continue to be global accounts of excessive force by law enforcement. Reports of officer-involved killings, injuries to citizens, and attempts to control protests and demonstrations with chemical irritants, rubber bullets, and sometimes shooting into crowds with live ammunition frequently appear in the press worldwide. However, reliable data on and accounting for these incidents are both lacking.

A large network of international and regional organizations, bilateral donors, international financial institutions, and civil society organizations aim to work with governments to improve policing practices and reduce police use of excessive force. As a part of that network, the U.S. Department of State, through its Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), provides foreign assistance to and supports capacity building for criminal justice systems and police organizations in approximately 90 countries. Like many donors, it strives to direct its resources to the most effective approaches to achieve its mission.

Policies and Practices to Minimize Police Use of Force Internationally, the third in a series of five reports produced for INL, addresses what policies and practices for police use of force are effective in promoting the rule of law and protecting the population (including the officers themselves). This report looks at what is known about effective practices and their implementation and identifies promising actions to be taken by international donors in their efforts to strengthen the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.2022. 84p.

By Hannah Doyle.

Terrorism, the use of military force in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, and the fatal police shootings of unarmed persons have all contributed to renewed interest in the ethics of police and military use of lethal force and its moral justification. In this book, philosopher Seumas Miller analyzes the various moral justifications and moral responsibilities involved in the use of lethal force by police and military combatants, relying on a distinctive normative teleological account of institutional roles. His conception constitutes a novel alternative to prevailing reductive individualist and collectivist accounts. As Miller argues, police and military uses of lethal force are morally justified in part by recourse to fundamental natural moral rights and obligations, especially the right to personal self-defense and the moral obligation to defend the lives of innocent others. Yet the moral justification for police and military use of lethal force is to some extent role-specific. Both police officers and military combatants evidently have an institutionally-based moral duty to put themselves in harm's way to protect others. Under some circumstances, however, police have an institutionally based moral duty to use lethal force to uphold the law; and military combatants have an institutionally based moral duty to use lethal force to win wars. Two key notions in play are joint action and the natural right to self-defense. Miller uses a relational individualist theory of joint actions to construct the notion of multi-layered structures of joint action in order to explicate organizational action. He also provides a novel theory of justifiable killing in self-defense. Over the course of his book, Miller covers a variety of urgent topics, such as police shootings of armed offenders, police shooting of suicide-bombers, targeted killing, autonomous weapons, humanitarian armed intervention, and civilian immunity. New York: Oxford University Press 2016, 312p.