Essay on "Personal Protection Equipment and Use of Force"

Essay 6 pages (2076 words) Sources: 5 Style: APA

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Personal Protection and the Use of Deadly Force

Personal protection has become an increasingly important issue in today's crime-ridden and danger-filled society. Debates over how far self-protection can go before it becomes a crime in and of itself continue to rage on, while the self-defense strategy has progressively inundated America's courtrooms. The laws regarding personal protection vary considerably based on a variety of factors including the state in which one resides; whether the incident took place on personal property or public property; and the type of criminal activity involved.

A recent Gallup poll found that of all of the different measures that Americans can take to protect themselves, they are "least likely to say they carry a weapon for defense, such as mace or pepper spray, a knife, or a gun." The most chosen self-protection measure on the list was avoiding shady neighborhoods. In between were: having a guard dog or watch dog, and installing an alarm system. Weapon protection ranked in the following order of preference: keeping a gun in the house, carrying pepper spray for defensive purposes, carrying a knife for defensive purposes and carrying a gun for defensive purposes (See appendix a).

Considering how much media attention has been given to the 'right to bear arms' in recent years, it is somewhat surprising that self-protection by firearm ranked so low on the list. Perhaps the reason is rooted in the fear of actually using the weapon and winding up in more trouble than the perpetrator. We have all heard stories about people going to jail simply for protecting themselves, their family or their place of business from a hostile intruder. If there is no gun, then there is no temptation to use it.

The laws have been changing in recent years, however, toward giving American citizens the right to use deadly force to defend themselves on or in their own property. For example, in 2007, Texas Governor Rick Perry "signed a new law that expands Texans' existing right to use deadly force to defend themselves 'without retreat' in their homes, cars and workplaces." Essentially, what this means is that if someone threatens you in your car, home or office, you have the right to shoot and kill them without fear of repercussions. These types of laws are known as "Castle Doctrines," and it is up to individual states to decide whether or not to adopt them. As of January, 2009, the states that have a castle doctrine are: (see appendix B):

Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming (Tekel, 2009, p. 1)

A total of 38 states have made it legal to shoot someone dead if they threaten you on your own property. This is an astounding phenomenon that has returned America in many ways to the 1800s and the Old West. While there are several factors fueling this trend, the most notable is the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that completely revamped America's pacifist mindset into one that favors a 'kill or be killed' mentality.

The problem is, attempting to protect oneself from a dangerous criminal with a deadly weapon often results in increasing the danger for the victim. Often, threats of self-protection or retaliation 9as opposed to compliance) only aggravate the criminal and cause them to do more serious harm -- especially if they do not take the reciprocal threats seriously or if it is obvious that the individual is very shaken and has probably never fired a gun at a human being before (as fortunately, most people have not). According to Siegel (2008) "Research indicates that victims who fight back often frustrate their attackers but also face increased odds of being physically harmed during the attack" (p. 80).

There is also evidence however, that self-protection with firearms is an effective deterrent to crime. As Siegel (2008) reports, "each year 2.5 million time, victims use guns for defensive purposes...[it is] estimated that armed victims kill between 1500 and 2800 potential felons each year and wound between 8700 and 16,000...Ironically, by fighting back, victims kill far more criminals that the estimated 250 to 1000 killed annually by police" (p. 80).

This, of course, brings to light another serious problem: vigilantism. Many argue that an "expanded right of self-defense" is not designed to endorse vigilante behaviors, but is merely meant to protect people from becoming victims of violent crime. In other words, it is not about vengeance or retribution; it is about preserving ones own safety. However this scenario assumes that the intended victim is only going to use deadly force if it is absolutely necessary, i.e. As a last resort. It also assumes that the victim will be honest about why they used deadly force. Clearly the dead criminal cannot corroborate their story.

Kauffman (2004) denotes four legal requirements for a self-defense shooting to be valid. These are:

(1) Force may be used only against an unlawful aggressor. This means both that the object of defensive force must be an attacker, and that his attack be without legal justification. The attack need not be strictly illegal: an insane or mistaken attacker is legally excused, but his attack is not justified, therefore one may use defensive force against him.

(2) the use of force must be strictly necessary. There must be no non-violent alternative available in order to protect oneself, and one may use no more force than is strictly necessary. There may be some limited exceptions: one need not retreat from one's home to avoid force. But in general one must use the minimum necessary force, or no force at all when possible.

(3) the amount of force must be proportional to the force being threatened. One may not use deadly force unless one is being threatened with especially serious harm: death, or serious bodily injury. If one is threatened with minor force, one may use only minor force to resist.

(4) the attack must be imminent. Force may be used neither in mere anticipation of possible future harm, nor after the threat of harm has passed (p.1).

These are excellent restrictions in theory. However, not all intended victims are innocent old ladies with a pistol in their pocketbook. Often the shooter who was allegedly protecting himself has a criminal history of his own. So who is to say what really happened and how deeply in danger the shooter really was? There is the possibility that that the person who did the shooting was not even being threatened at all and is just using that as an excuse to kill someone for an entirely different reason. Unless there are eyewitnesses or a video recording of the incident, no one can really say for sure exactly what happened and why. While it is true that "self-defense cases require a thorough investigation of all aspects of the case including the alleged victim's reputation and prior difficulties between the parties" ("Florida Use," 2009, p. 1) there is no guarantee that the findings of such an investigation will be accurate.

Another important question related to personal protection and deadly force is the availability of alternatives, such as running away. One would think that using force as a last resort would include the attempt to flee the scene, but that is not the case. In states with Castle Doctrines, "The defendant has no duty to retreat from a place where he has a right to be and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm or death to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony" ("Florida Use," 2009, p. 1). Essentially this means that not wanting to 'lose face' is enough to justify legal homicide.

Those who are in favor of these types of laws refer to them affectionately as "stand your ground" laws. Those who oppose them prefer the term "shoot first" laws, referring to the maxim 'shoot first, ask questions later.' So, on one side of the fence we have the people who think that running away or attempting other means of resolution to a physical threat is a sign of being a 'wuss'. And on the other side are those that equate expanded self-defense laws as a free pass to commit murder. It is difficult not to agree with the 'anti's when "Thanks to this sort of law, a prostitute in Port Richey, Fla., who killed her 72-year-old client with his own gun rather than flee was not charged last month. Similarly, the police in Clearwater, Fla., did not arrest a man who shot a neighbor in early June after a shouting match over putting out garbage" (Liptak, 2006, p. 1).

Additionally worrisome is where this trend might be heading. With gun laws and self-defense laws getting… READ MORE

How to Reference "Personal Protection Equipment and Use of Force" Essay in a Bibliography

Related Essays:

Weapons Personal Protection Equipment and Use of Force Thesis

Criminal Justice - Personal Security

PERSONAL and PHYSICAL SECURITY and USE-of-FORCE ISSUES the Statutory Right to Self-Defense:

As far back as English Common Law, necessary self-defense (including killing in certain… read more

Thesis 5 pages (1473 words) Sources: 3 Style: APA Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

Use of Force in Law Enforcement Thesis

Force in Law Enforcement

The controversy swirling about Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a respected Cambridge professor who happens to be an African-American, and Sgt. James M. Crowley, a police… read more

Thesis 30 pages (9298 words) Sources: 10 Style: APA Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

Biological Weapon Detection Equipment Term Paper

Biological Weapon Detection Equipment

Bioterrorism is potentially one of the deadlier forms of terrorism because it can be silently introduced amidst large populations to cause untold health problems or large… read more

Term Paper 13 pages (3452 words) Sources: 7 Style: APA Topic: Disease / Virus / Disorder / Injury

---

Contemporary Criminal Justice Issue Police Use of Deadly Force Capstone Project

Police Use of Deadly Force

Since time immemorial, the use of deadly force has been considered justified for self-defense, or for the defense of one's family and even property. When… read more

Capstone Project 20 pages (6054 words) Sources: 8 Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

Variables in Personal Security Environment Essay

Limits of authority

As much as possible, security personnel must adjust to the principal's convenience. They must avoid interference with the private and/or official functions of the principal (and associated… read more

Essay 10 pages (3393 words) Sources: 10 Topic: Military / Army / Navy / Marines

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>