week 6 replies

Week 6 replies

524 d1 replies 100 words

Reply to laycee

Pate (1995) discussed how use of coercive force has been found by many scholars to be the crucial that distinguishes policing from all other professions. Out of all the different options, I believe the state government should be responsible for establishing policies in regards of law enforcement and use of force. After the year of 2020, organizations like CampaignZero and #8cantwait advocated for police reform. Through these movements, citizens wanted the police system to hold themselves accountable and be able to be transparent about situations that caused division. The state government can analyze data within each city to establish different policies/standards along with locating resources to provide funds for certain programs as well. These practices can be applied when the state government wants to implement different policies for use of force. This would also include regulating the training, certification, and conduct of police officers. Unions should play an important role in the policy formulation and representation of police. The union should be participating in the decision making, demonstrating transparency and accountability within law enforcement.

Missouri's distracted driving law (called "Siddens Bening Hands Free Law" has been in placed to help drivers under the age of 21 to stop texting, taking pictures, sending emails, and other distracting acts while driving. Some of the exceptions to this law are: if someone is reporting illegal activity, summoning medical or emergency help, and preventing injury to someone else or property. 

Pate, A. M., & Fridell, L. A. (1995). Toward the Uniform Reporting of Police Use of Force: Results of a National Survey. Criminal Justice Review (Georgia State University), 20(2), 123–145.  https://doi-org.proxy.ccis.edu/10.1177/073401689502000203

Less

Reply d1 to Fredrick

· Who do you believe is most appropriate to establish the use of force and other policies by police? Is it the department? Is it local or state government? Is it the federal government? Explain your reasoning. I don't think any answer is incorrect. If you're from a small town, you would want to handle your issues within city limits. The issue with that though is that police prescient won't have any predictability on what things should be. If you choose a federal approach, I think they would have to much power in our day to day actives. If I had to choose one, it would have to be the state. I think the states should lead the vote in establishing policies that our officers have to follow. I say this because each state is different and I think the state has a better handle on what they feel needs to be addressed within their border. If they need assistance on a issue, then I think they should lean on federal assistance. 

· What role should unions play in policy formulation and representation of police? I think the union should get involved in smaller prescient's. In larger areas I think the elected official meaning the mayor should be the person who has the policy formulation. I think if the union gets to involved, it could get messy long term. Which is why we have state elections. I think it's their job to create policy and also be the face when things go wrong. 

· Cite an example in which you believe effective policy was implemented. Also cite an example in which the policy was not effective. I understand the texting while driving policy was created to make our roads safer. It has worked because more people are driving safely. The issue with this policy is that a lot of officers text and drive or type and drive. There has been multiple accidents because of these issues. In order to fix this officers should be required to adhere to all of the same laws that we follow daily. The policy I like in Colorado was when they made it that you can get a DUI driving high. I don't think people should operate any heavy-duty machinery high. 

Cited Material

(2024, August 22). Drugged driving. Codot.gov. Retrieved April 6, 2026, from  https://www.codot.gov/safety/impaired-driving/druggeddriving/campaign-news/can-i-get-a-dui-for-driving-high

(2026, January 26). Distracted Driving prevention. Cdc.gov. Retrieved April 6, 2026, from  https://www.cdc.gov/distracted-driving/prevention/index.html  

524 d2 replies 100 words

Reply to shequita

In this week's reading of chapter four titled “The Enforcement of Immigration Law by Police,” the authors displayed an argument in which all immigration enforcement should be exercised by federal agencies to maintain public safety. Local law enforcement alone would cause disorder and/or interrupt the normal progress and immigration procedures. One disagrees with the authors as one believes both federal and local involvement could help maintain public safety objectives. The Federal government can handle immigration enforcement at the highest level, i.e. the border. Local law enforcement agencies can handle immigration enforcement exercising daily duties throughout the communities. 

 An area in which one disagrees is “Section 287 (g).” Memorandum of Agreements were made with both federal and state level government; However, agreements were not of free will for local law enforcement agencies, MOA’s entailing additional costs in human resources and being closely supervised under ICE. “Under the MOAs, police agencies designated officers for specialized training by ICE officials on immigration laws, identification of potential unauthorized immigrants, procedures for verifying documents, and the use of databases to validate identities. Once these officers were trained, the designated officers would return to their home jurisdictions and be supervised under ICE. Agencies willing to engage in immigration enforcement incurred an additional cost in human resources and agreed upon close supervision from the federal government” (Capps, 2010).  

As there are loopholes in the realm of border security, one believes that area should be the focus of the federal government. “Congress needs to fix our broken immigration system by enacting legislation that will close the legal loopholes so families seeking to cross the border illegally can be returned home swiftly, ending the practice of catch-and-release. Closing these loopholes is also essential to protect American communities from criminal gangs, like MS-13, who exploit these catch-and-release policies to expand their criminal enterprise” (HHS, n.d.). The areas one believes should be left to the state and local governments, to the extent they legally have enforcement authority are: 1) “Exercising the apprehension of individuals for federal immigration law infractions; 2) Local police entering partnerships to act as federal immigration agents; 3) managing detentions; and 4)  Voluntary agreement and cooperation to work with ICE under the 287 (g) agreements”(Kobach, 2004). 

Assuming one were engaged in a criminal justice policy in the State of Georgia, the area one believes federal and state government should engage together is working with interagency taskforces i.e. ICE. This would help the State of Georgia by identifying foreign–born criminal and/or gangs within the state to enhance public safety. If one were to work with the local officials, one would like to work at the community level helping local police build trust and rapport. One would want to partner with Community-Oriented Policing, to engage immigration communities to foster safety rather than utilizing fear-based tactics.  

 

                                 References 

Capps, R. (2010) The Role of Local Police: Striking a balance between immigration enforcement and civil liberties. Local enforcement of immigration laws: Evolution of the 243(g) Program and its potential impacts on local communities. Washington, DC. Police Foundation.  https://policefoundation.org  

Kobach,K. (2004) State and Local authority to enforce Immigration Law. Center for Immigration Studies 

United States Department of Health and Human Services (n.d.) Border Security Loopholes drive massive surge in unaccompanied Alien Children. HHS.  https://hhs.gov  

Reply to doug

State your areas of agreement and/or disagreement with the authors in Chapter 4. Explain why you agree and/or disagree with the authors.

Like in so many chapters of the text, I feel the authors do a fairly good job of attempting to muddy the waters in an effort to “re-educate” the youth of the Nation.  The problem is the outlier. Me. The one who has been paying attention to politics since the 1980s and is a student of history. Plus the text is more than a decade old and a lot has changed since then including two very different administrations.  They make a feeble argument about communities being damaged by deportations.  I got to say, if an illegal immigrant down the street from me got deported tomorrow, it would not affect me or most of my neighbors one bit.  The idea about migrant communities being afraid of reporting crime, doesn't float in the tub of common sense either.  If they are unhappy about their situation, they can go home.  As a man who is married to an immigrant, I witnessed first hand her voyage and the financial difficulty it caused her.  She did it right! Therefore I cannot bring myself to shed a tear for those who wish to enter our country illegally and absorb our benefits paid for by the tax  payers of this country. 

In the Supreme Court Case of Arizona et al. v. United States, it was stated, “The pervasiveness of federal regulation does not diminish the importance of immigration policy to the States”.  I agree the nation is composed of and always has been a union of many states who enjoy their own sovereignty.  They go on to state, “Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful immigration. Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in Arizona each year.”  Texas, my home state, does as well, and this may be why the Texas Legislature passed into law SB 40 in 2023, which allows state officers to arrest, and judges to deport, migrants suspected of entering Texas illegally.  If Texans are ok with fitting the bill for this, so am I.  

In the decision the court goes on to relate, “There is no doubt that, before the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each State had the authority to prevent itself from being burdened by an influx of persons." Mayor of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102, 132-133 (1837). And the Constitution did not strip the States of that authority”.  I agree.

This is one of the great things about America, it is a woven fabric of many different individual states.  States that have their laws based on past countries from around the world.  Louisiana for example has laws based on Napoleonic (French) law.  New England states have their roots in old English common law.  Texas has laws based on the old west ideas that men are responsible for their actions and even have laws for cattle rustling and horse thievery still on the books.  So if you don't like how things are in one state, you can always move to another.

Having considered all three sources of information, in what area do you feel the federal government should most focus its immigration policy? What areas do you believe should be left to the state and local governments, to the extent they legally have enforcement authority?

With regard to the federal government, Currently I don’t have any issue with how they are conducting business.  The question was “how do I feel?”  I feel… they are simply discharging the rule of law, as it has always been written.  The major problem is people around the country are surprised because in the past, the two key agencies tasked with doing their job, had their hands tied by administrations who were more interested in votes, than the security of the country.  If one doesn’t see this as a reality, I have no reason to continue the discussion.  The states have a certain level of sovereignty, and to that end if they choose to assist in or support the federal government in immigration enforcement that is up to them.  State, county, and local authorities do not have the power to deport people, but they can always hold them with  detainers until federal agencies arrive and take custody of them.  If by their status as being unlawful in the country, those immigrants are therefore illegally in the state as well.  Back to the common sense tub.  It’s not a hard concept to grasp, once you clear away the mud. 

Answer the same questions from the perspective of state and local governments by stating the areas in which they should focus resources in the area of immigration enforcement. What areas should they leave for the federal government?

States have every right to enforce illegal immigration.  No where in the Constitution does it say otherwise. If they choose to balance the cost of detaining illegals and holding them for ICE, versus the cost of letting crime run rampant in their communities, and the equation gives them a number that makes sense then let them enact rules that reflect.  Trust me no one in Virginia cares about the problems in South Dakota. Not one single Texan cares about what is going on in Oregon.  The areas that should be left to the federal government is the actual deportation of such persons.  That I feel is solely the responsibility of the feds.  The states can round them up and place them in holding facilities, but the federal agencies tasked with the deportation should continue to take that part for action. 

Assume you were engaged in criminal justice policy in your state. In what areas do you believe that the federal and state government should work together for successful immigration policy? In what areas would you work with local officials?

This is simple.  First, create a state level working group comprised of the various stake holders. Draft the MOU/MOA and ensure it is within the framework of the Constitution.  Ensure funding is set aside for a certain amount (project this number based on previous encounters).  Create a WAWF (Wide Area Work Flow) document, being careful not to have version control issues, and forward it through the budgetary components, the legislature, and the executive branches.  Of course push it out to the local field offices of Homeland Security, ICE, and CBP for their buy-in.  Prepare to receive feedback and make adjustments in the language as needed.  Produce the updates and send out to the agencies in a broad policy statement informing Sheriff’s and Police Chiefs of the new law.  

~Doug

Jr., F.P.R. B. (2019). Flawed Criminal Justice Policies: At the Intersection of the Media, Public Fear and Legislative Response (2nd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.  https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781531011376  

Online Website Find Law (2012). United States Supreme Court ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES (2012) No. 11-182   https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/11-182.html  

Villareal, A. (2024). Where Texas Goes the Nation Follows: State Legislatures and Immigration Enforcement.  https://forumtogether.org/article/where-texas-goes-the-nation-follows-republican-controlled-state-legislatures-and-immigration-enforcement/  

less

561 replies 200 words

Reply 1

Survivors Advocacy: The Gabby Petito Case

The tragic case of Gabby Petito demonstrates some essential gaps in victim advocacy, especially in the reaction of law enforcement to the case of domestic violence. Trauma-informed care was one of the greatest principles that was lacking during the police encounter. The bodycam footage showed Gabby looking distressed, but the officers did not see it as a reaction to the possible abuse; they believed she was unstable. Trauma-informed care involves being mindful of the fact that a victim might appear anxious, apologetic, or even self-blaming because of coercive control. Officers could have focused their attention on evaluating the power relationships and safety risks involved in the relationship instead of evaluating who was in the wrong when this principle was applied (James, 2024).

Survivor empowerment was another aspect that was lacking. The encounter itself appeared to make Gabby more vulnerable, rather than keeping her safe and supported. Victim advocacy focuses on providing victims with a voice, legitimizing their experiences, and providing resources without judgment. The implementation of this strategy might have resulted in the division of Gabby and her fiancé, a more detailed risk analysis, and linking her to domestic violence support or crisis intervention support. These measures might not have ensured a more positive result, but they could have provided her with more safety and support.

In this case, as a victim advocate collaborating with law enforcement, I would have intervened by guiding police to be calm, non-judgmental, and victim-centered. I would recommend that they ask open-ended questions, confirm to Gabby that she is not alone in her feelings, and determine whether she is being coerced or if her injuries are apparent. Also, I would suggest the use of a crisis intervention team that would offer urgent emotional support and safety planning. As per the crisis intervention models, prompt intervention and emotional stabilization can be very crucial in deterring escalation and damage (James, 2024). I would also stress the need to isolate both persons when interrogating them so that Gabby could express herself without the fear of reprisals.

The uneven distribution of media attention is also brought into the limelight of this case. The case of Gabby Petito was widely covered, and numerous cases of Black women, Indigenous women, and other marginalized groups are barely covered. Victim advocacy systems should manage this inequality by ensuring that the resources and visibility, as well as support services, are accessed fairly. Policy reform, community outreach, and culturally competent services that address the influence of race, class, and gender on accessing help should be advocated. Moreover, collaboration between communities and law enforcement can be employed to make sure that the survivors who belong to marginalized communities will not be neglected or underprivileged (Shane, 2019).

After all, the case of Gabby Petito supports the need to incorporate trauma-informed care, empowerment of survivors, and fair advocacy as the key elements of law enforcement responses. Victim advocacy can be very important in preventing further tragedies by focusing on the lived experiences of survivors and working on system-wide disparities.

References James, R. (2024). Crisis Intervention Strategies (9th ed.). Cengage Learning US.  https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9798214125787 Shane, J. (2019). Stress Inside Police Departments. Taylor & Francis.  https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9781000762891

Reply 2 eric

Gabby Petito’s case illustrates how domestic violence can be misread when responders focus on surface behavior instead of coercive control. In August 2021, police in Moab, Utah, stopped Gabby Petito and Brian Laundrie after a witness reported a domestic incident. The later independent review found officers had evidence of a domestic violence event, but treated the encounter more as a relationship conflict than a potentially dangerous abuse pattern. Weeks later, Petito was reported missing, and the FBI ultimately concluded Laundrie was responsible for her death. 

Several victim advocacy principles were missing during that law enforcement encounter. First, trauma-informed care was limited. Petito was visibly distressed, crying, apologizing, and showing classic signs of fear and dysregulation, yet the response appears to have centered more on sorting out fault than understanding trauma. A trauma-informed response would have recognized that survivors of coercive control may minimize danger, self-blame, or appear “emotional” while the abusive partner appears calm. Trauma-informed, victim-centered policing emphasizes safety, choice, and avoiding re-traumatization. Second, survivor empowerment was missing. Officers should have spoken with Gabby privately, assessed for coercive control, helped her develop a safety plan, and connected her with an advocate before releasing the couple separately for the night. Research shows coercive control can create profound trauma effects even when physical violence is not obvious. 

If I were the victim advocate on scene, I would have advised officers to stop treating the call as a simple dispute and instead conduct a lethality and coercive-control assessment. I would ask for a private interview with Gabby, validate her distress, explain options without pressure, and offer immediate linkage to shelter, transportation, hotline support, and follow-up advocacy. I would also encourage officers to document patterns of isolation, intimidation, or controlling behavior, not just visible injuries. A survivor-centered approach prioritizes informed choice and immediate safety over quick scene clearance. 

The case also exposed disparities in how survivors receive attention. Petito’s story drew extraordinary coverage, while many survivors, especially Indigenous women, Black women, immigrant survivors, LGBTQ+ victims, and low-income victims receive far less visibility and fewer resources. Victim advocacy frameworks can address this by requiring culturally responsive outreach, funding services for underserved populations, and building protocols that do not depend on media attention to trigger support. The Office for Victims of Crime has specifically emphasized services for underserved and marginalized communities, which is exactly the direction domestic violence advocacy must continue to move. 

References

 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2022, January 21). FBI Denver provides final investigative update on Gabrielle Petito case.

Lohmann, S., et al. (2023). The trauma and mental health impacts of coercive control.

Moab City Police Department. (2021). Combined statement and investigative review of the August 12, 2021 Petito-Laundrie incident.

Office for Victims of Crime. (2024). Underserved populations; Meeting the basic needs of underserved crime victims.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. (2024). Victim-centered, trauma-informed practices: An overview.