Indeed, the SCOTUS said in its holding:Īll claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. In its decision, the SCOTUS made it clear that an officer’s use of force on a free citizen is to be evaluated as a seizure of the person under the Fourth Amendment. This decision created a national standard that is still in place today. The True Legal Standard In 1989, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down one of the landmark decisions regarding an officer’s use of force. The officer’s force response will definitely be evaluated from an objective standard, as one will clearly recognize after reading and understanding the true legal standard of an officer’s use of force. The decision made must still be made based on objective facts known to the officer at the time of the force application.
This is where the subjectivity comes into play. The officer may have a choice of reasonable options but based on personal preference may lean toward one more than the other. The force option chosen and how it is deployed and used against the suspect can have a subjective component. So in essence, it is the suspect who forces an officer to choose a force response. If the suspect is non-resistive and compliant, the officer will have no reason to have to resort to a force response. Another quick check with Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary reveals the definition of “objective” to include, “involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena.” Listed synonyms include empirical and observational.Īn officer will make his/her force-option decision based on the actions of the suspect. Objective/Subjective Decision - Objective Analysis The word “objectively” is the adverb form of the word “objective.” In this case it is used as a modifier of the adjective “reasonable” to describe the noun “force” (sorry for the grammar lesson…again). I realize that some will dismiss this thinking as “just semantics.” I caution those naysayers with the same words one of my trainers told me several years ago, “the law is comprised of words, and those words have definitions.” Please take heed to these wise words as it is for your benefit. When comparing the definitions of the terms written about in this article, would you rather be held to a standard that:ġ.) requires absolute certainty and can consider facts that were discovered with hindsight, or 2.) takes into consideration the legal standard used by the Supreme Court of the United States and human performance limitations. Included in this list are:ġ.) being in accordance with reason, and 2.) not extreme or excessive.Ī few of the listed synonyms include: good, rational, logical, sensible, and sound. The word reasonable (used as an adjective) also has several meanings and synonyms. Indeed, all one needs to do is to revisit our friend Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. For that you need to use a preposition like cum, contra or adversus.For police use-of-force incidents, the definitions of words like ‘reasonable’ and ‘necessary’ are often discussed but sometimes also misused or misunderstood. pugnam pugnare, "to fight a battle"), but it doesn't take the accusative of what you're fighting against. The only accusative it can take is an internal accusative of a word meaning "fight", "battle" or sim. It can't be used with only a participle like "while" can in English. Dum requires a finite (conjugated) verb. By "naturally", do you really mean "by nature", "according to nature", which is what naturaliter means, or don't you rather mean it more like "of course"? If you mean the latter, naturaliter won't work quidem will.
Here you rather need something like pertinere ad. mea non refert utrum ille vivat annon, "It doesn't matter to me/I don't care whether he's alive or not" populi refert bonos in potestate esse, "It's important for the people that the good should be in power." But it can't be used with a noun as subject and with direct objects of the things concerned as you did. clause, indirect question or neuter pronoun, sometimes with either the genitive of the person concerned or not or a possessive adjective in the feminine ablative, with the meaning "it concerns one/it makes a difference/it matters that/if." E.g. You apparently got confused with its impersonal use, when refert is used with an impersonal subject like an acc.-inf. refert: referre isn't used this way to mean "to concern something". Here are the most immediately striking problems and potential problems:
0 kommentar(er)
