Discussion 1: What Would You Do? Reasonable Force Discussion 2: What Would You Do? Deception

Describe the action(s) you would take in the circumstances described.

The first thing that I would have done which is the reason I believe that the circumstances

probably ended up with them being in an altercation is use my discretion and suggested that they

use the sidewalk instead of walking in the street. After asking them to move out the street and if

an argument started then the one reached in my car and grabbed my shirt thinking that this would

have happened as of today I would have grabbed my gun as well thinking that the boy is either

trying to grab my gun or either possibly he has something in his hand. In that moment I have a

responsibility to protect myself, I know for sure that I would have tased him if not shot once I

have reached for my weapon out of fear for my life.

Explain your rationale for the action(s) you took.

The reason for the actions I took is seeing how that while I am patrolling and making

discretionary decisions, so the first action of me making the suggestion to them to move out of

the street to the sidewalk is because although they are in a residential area it still looks a little

suspicious of them walking in the street (Brandi, 2018). Based on the information that we were

given is the reason that I took the action that I took, but I really believe that there is much more

information that I believe that we are missing that would really help us to make the decision

based on the circumstance,

Reference:

Brandi, S. G. (2018). Police in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chapter 8,

“Police Discretion and Its Control” (pp. 166-191)

Discussion 2: What Would You Do? Deception

THIS IS ONLY TO BE USED AS A GUIDE TO HELP YOU FORM YOUR WORK. THIS IS NOT A REWRITE

Describe the action(s) you would take in the circumstances described.

 Explain your rationale for the action(s) you took.

Week Four Discussion Two: What Would You Do? Deception

 Deception: ¹a. the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false or

invalid: the act of deceiving, resorting to falsehood and used to leak the classified

information. b. the fact or condition of being deceived. ² something that deceives: TRICK,

fooled by a scam (Merriam-Webster, n.d.).

Hello Everyone,

I would like to say that this is a moral issue that bothers me with law enforcement. How can

lying and deceiving set an example for the rest of society to follow? How can lying and

deceiving gets an offender to trust the law and want to better themselves? It doesn’t! Besides

this scenario sounds more like an interrogation than an interview. An interrogation is more

focused on collecting incriminating information, intending to provoke a confession (Issues in

Forensic Psychology, n.d.). Interrogation is defined as a “guilt-presumptive process” or question

with the intent to get incriminating information, this is usually done at a police station. While an

interview has the main goal to collect information and it can occur in many different locations. A

reason for an interview has a more innocent and less organized atmosphere plus, Miranda

Rights are not needed to be given to the suspect (Brandl, 2018).

Actions I Would Take in Scenario:

If I knew that this guy was guilty, but lack of evidence was going to let him go free, I may do

whatever possible to get the guy to come into the police department for questioning. I do think

that I could say I had evidence that I did not have? I may insinuate to suspect and word the

interview with this like; just be honest, the truth is going to come out anyway, or you know what

you did so just admit it. But to blatantly say I had evidence that I did not is wrong for many

reasons to me. It may even evoke a false confession leaving the real offender free to rob again.

I would most likely just try to obtain the warrant and just avoid the whole “interview” process by

making it an interrogation.

My reasoning for this is because how the officer got the suspect to come in for questioning

could be considered coercion. Coercion is when a person in question is manipulated by another

to make provisions in his or her will, that he or she would not make if allowed to act freely. It

contains elements of both duress and undue influence, two ways in which a testator's freedom

of choice in making a will is taken away (Coercion, n.d.). These behaviors are unethical to me,

you need evidence to convict someone of a crime and without it there is no proof that particular

person committed the crime. A gut feeling is not proof.

References

Brandl, S. (2018). Criminal investigation (4th ed.). (Ch. 6 & 7). (pp. 142-211). Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications.

Coercion. (n.d.) A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States.

By John Bouvier, (1856). Retrieved March 25, 2021, from https://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Coercion

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Deception. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved March 25,

2021, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deception

Kassin, S. (2001). Confessions: Psychological and forensic aspects. In International Encyclopedia of the

Social & Behavioral Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/falseconfession#: ~:text='Coerced%2Dcompliant%20false%20confessions',or%20she%20is%20truly

%20innocent.

McGrath, M. (2014). False confessions. In Forensic Victimology (2

nd ed.). Retrieved from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/false-confession#:~:text='Coerced%2Dcompliant

%20false%20confessions’, or%20she%20is%20truly%20innocent