The Story Of Our Firm | En Español
 Home    Lawyers   Litigation   Why Choose Us?   Results

Accidents Injuries False Arrest & Imprisonment Research Center Learn More

Use of Force

in this section: Deadly Force | Non-Deadly Force | Police Misconduct: Police Brutality & False Arrest


Bookmark This Page Print This Page Email This Page

LAWYER FOR A FALSE ARREST INCIDENT
Police policy on brutality and "use of force"

If you're the victim of false arrest or excessive use of force by a police officer or any law enforcement officer (public or private), fill out this simple form and get your free case review today.

The police are there to protect us and keep us safe. That is why police have policies on issues such as "Use of Force" that protect against police brutality and false arrest or false imprisonment. When those policies are violated or civilians (such as security guards and shop owners) act as police, the result may be false arrest or false imprisonment. If you have been falsely arrested, fill out this simple form for a FREE false arrest case evaluation.

General Policy

Law enforcement agencies must recognize and respect the value and dignity of every person. In vesting law enforcement officers with the lawful authority to use force to protect the public welfare, a careful balancing of all human interests is required.

Courtesy in all public contacts encourages understanding and cooperation. The most desirable method for effectuating an arrest is where a suspect complies with simple directions given by an officer. When officers are confronted with a situation where control is required to effect arrest or protect the public safety, officers should attempt to achieve control through advice, warnings and persuasion. Where such verbal persuasion has not been effective, is not feasible, or would appear to be ineffective, an officer may use force that is reasonably necessary.

Policing requires that at times an officer must exercise control of a violent, assaultive, or resisting individual to make an arrest, or to protect the officer, other officers, or members of the general public from a risk of imminent harm. Police officers should use only an amount of force that is reasonably necessary to effectively bring an incident under control, while protecting the lives of the officers and others.

Continuum of Force

When the use of force is reasonable and necessary, officers should, to the extent possible, use an escalating scale of options and not employ more forceful means unless it is determined that a lower level of force would not be, or has not been, adequate. The levels of force that generally should be included in the agency's continuum of force include: verbal commands, use of hands, chemical agents, baton or other impact weapon, canine, less-than-lethal projectiles, and deadly force.

Each situation is unique. Good judgment and the circumstances of each situation will dictate the level on the continuum of force at which an officer will start. Depending on the circumstances, officers may find it necessary to escalate or de-escalate the use of force by progressing up or down the force continuum. It is not the intent of this policy to require officers to try each of the options before moving to the next, as long as the level of force used is reasonable under the circumstances.


Click To Talk To Us Online

Please complete the following questionnaire:

Name
Email
Phone Number
Best time to call
City/State
Date of Arrest
Circumstances of Arrest
How did you hear about Weitz & Luxenberg?
Additional Comments



see also:

Non-Deadly Force False Arrest Lawyer: Police Policy, Use of Non-Deadly Force, Brutality
We protect against police brutality, false arrest & false imprisonment

Deadly Force False Arrest Lawyer: Police Policy on Use of Deadly Force
We protect against police brutality, false arrest & false imprisonment

Use of Force False Arrest Lawyer: Police Policy on Use of Force
We protect against incorrect of use of force by your police department


Name Phone Email
Do you have a legal question? Ask us!   strictly confidential
Your Question

Click here
for a free case review



$53 million verdict — brake mechanic suffering from mesothelioma

$13.5 million verdict — one of the very first Vioxx trial cases

$15 million settlement — man wound up a paraplegic due to negligent hospital care

$37 million verdict — 2 asbestos lung cancer plaintiffs

$47 million verdict — boilermaker who died from mesothelioma

$75 million verdict — historic consolidated trial involving men who had worked at the Brooklyn Navy Yard in the 1940s and 1950s

$12.7 million verdict — iron worker who was injured due to unsafe working conditions

$64.65 million award — 4 asbestos plaintiffs

$17.5 million — consolidated trial of 5 mesothelioma victims

$25 million jury verdict — brake reliner

$5.8 million settlement — failure to perform timely C-Section

$30 million verdict — 7 former power-plant workers suffering from asbestos-related illnesses

$6 million settlement — pediatric malpractice case

$14 million consolidated verdict — 5 asbestos-related cancer suits: shipyards/powerhouses/construction

$8 million settlement — obstetrical malpractice resulted in neurological deficits

$3.5 million — 2 asbestos exposure cases

$600,000 settlement — motor vehicle negligence resulting in serious injury

$44 million verdict — 5 asbestos cases, including $11.6 million awarded to widow of sheet metal worker who died of mesothelioma

$1.6 million settlement — suicide after premature hospital discharge

$2.6 million settlement — ill-fitting prosthesis caused decubitus ulcers

$1.5 million settlement — construction worker fell off elevated train tracks

$750,000 settlement — defective construction equipment resulted in serious injury to worker



Ask a Free Question:
Were you injured?

check for your response [login]
For legal help anywhere in the U.S.
A nationally-recognized personal injury law firm, Weitz & Luxenberg is committed to helping clients win cases, get the compensation to which they’re entitled and continue with their lives. In just over 20 years, we’ve collected more than $1.3 billion for plaintiffs.