Police use of force is legal, but it's not always right |
- Jeffrey Ehasz
- 6 days ago
- 1 min read
Kevin Davis:
So...now police officers in Akron don't have to meet the legal standards on use of force, they have to only use force that a self-described activist believes is "right." Of course, this agenda driven activist won't tell officers what they CAN do, only condemn them after watching a video.
The author, and "activists" such as this have every right to exercise their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. They would, and I would defend this right.
That said, police use of force is governed (per the Supreme Court) by the 4th Amendment. Citizens are protected against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Hence the "objective reasonableness standard" of Graham v. Connor and other SCOTUS decisions. These standards are based on what a "reasonably prudent and well-trained officer" would do in the exact same circumstances, in the officer's shoes.
Not what an activist, leftist progressive thinks based on the 20/20 vision of hindsight through his biased lens.
This is a perfect example of what's wrong with the "politics of force" in Akron. Too many biased individuals with no police experience or limited to no knowledge on policing and use of force controlling what police officers do everyday on the streets of Akron.
As to the "deescalation" and "proportional" force pushed by this activist and PERF. Show me the research. There ain't any...