What are the pros and cons for police brutality?

There are no-pros the police should not subject anyone to brutality. Indeed any suspect is INNOCENT until proven GUILTY in a COURT OF LAW.

Police Brutality Pros And Cons

There are no pros.

The cons include:

1. First and foremost, it is ILLEGAL. No police officer should do anything that violates the law.

2. See #1: It is ILLEGAL meaning that, not only can an offending officer be fired from their job and find it difficult to pursue a law enforcement career anywhere, prison can be pretty harsh for ex-officers doing time.

3. It is a fundamental violation of a suspect’s human rights. Human rights are rights that every single human being has, irrespective of whether they are particulary nice or good or anything.

4. It creates an atmosphere of distrust in the community. People are more reluctant to support their local law enforcement when they know the goons might beat or kill their children just for being smart-mouthed on the way to school. Also, people will be much less willing to provide the police with vital information because they won’t want to get anywhere near them.

5. Finally, the worst result of police brutality is that, when it goes unchecked in a community long enough, it is inevitable that people get really angry…and pretty soon, the police themselves are the targets for retribution…and that retribution might also include their families, too.

This Site Might Help You.

RE:

What are the pros and cons for police brutality?

If police brutality was allowed, I’d wager that there would be a lot fewer frivolous calls to 911. That, in turn would save on fuel to respond to calls, overtime for officers, etc., and possibly lower costs for maintaining the police force. I know I have responded to calls where the complaint and both parties have been so stupid that I have wanted to beat some sense into them for wasting my time while I could be handling other calls. Calling 911 to complain about neighbors mowing their lawns too loudly, or some other foolishness. That is about the only “pro” I can think of.

Police have to make instant flashpoint decisions on using the best measure of force against an aggressively dangerous criminal suspect.

Bear in mind: the violent criminal is in NO way concerned with a law enforcement officer’s safety OR civil rights….

Example:

Violent, crack-crazed criminal takes a swing at an officer with a bat with dozens of nails sticking out of it. The officer fires his gun and blows the criminal’s head off clean.

Is that police brutality? Surviving embittered family of the crack head will surely say it is—and they’ll try for grubbing some $$$$ in some wacked civil suit……and lose!!

The answer here is: The officer used justifiable force—because deadly force is authorized when faced with having any weapon that can cause death used on you. That’s right: the officer has a right to live and come home alive to his family; the crack head gave up his right by trying to kill the officer.

Another scenario:

Crack-head takes a fist swing at an officer. The officer throws a one punch hard fist hit into the crackhead’s face, breaking his jaw. The crack head goes down hard to limp near unconscious and no other force by the officer is used or necessary. Was the officer justified?

You bet he was!! The officer used “measure for measure” force—and controlled himself from using any other equal or higher force the second the crackhead was evidently stopped from further violent action. No, it wasn’t pretty—-but the officer HAS the right to self-defense.

And the officer’s chief should have the guts to support the officer for doing what was necessary when the media cameras are on. Believe it or not—this is NOW beginning to surface in today’s society!! And it’s about time.

And today—cops are getting the nod to use “measure for measure” force—and it’s working quite well.

Ok: here’s one for the liberals–a no-brainer:

Crackhead enacts violence on an officer. The officer uses “measure for measure” force on the crackhead–who is down and no longer violent. The officer then kicks the crackhead several times until he’s a bloody pulp needing medical attention.

The officer in THIS case crossed the line and deserves severe disciplinary action, job termination and/or incarceration for his actions.

Enough said.

https://shorturl.im/STg0U

The biggest pro of police brutality is the individual whom has been beat one time to many & smokes a pig.

Police must and will obey the law or else they lose their job. No pros for police brutality in USA. Maybe in Russia or China, North Korea, Iran or Iraq but not in the USA.

There can never be any pro for any kind of brutality. Brutality is for brutes. Thankfully, most of our police officers are trained to be human beings, not brutes.

one of the pro’s is it makes an example to the other criminals not to mess with the police.

con- person could be seriously hurt and the officers could get hurt in the struggle.