use police brutality in many instances is as much a matter of perception as it is a matter of objective fact (Braun, 1991, p. 6).
If the definition of police brutality relied only on the application of a quantifiable level of physical force by a police officer, or on specific types of intimidation or coercion, the debate over police brutality would be largely a technical exercise similar to the debate surrounding what is an what is not a cruel and unusual punishment. There are, however, no quantifiable levels of physical force, intimidation, or coercion, the application of which by a police officer constitutes police brutality per se in any situation. The application of physical force, intimidation, and coercion by police officers is widely recognized as both appropriate and necessary in some situations (Marx, 1989, pp. 8, 13). Such actions on the part of police officers are classified as brutality only when the level of physical force, intimidation, or coercion is deemed inappropriate for a given situation (Abuse, 1989, p. 6). Unfortunately different people--more often than not, the police on one side, and some civilian or group of civilians on the other side, evaluate situations differently, and, therefore, make different assessments of the appropriateness of the use of physical force, intimidation, or coercion by police officers in given situations (Fridell, 1989, pp. 157-165). The not unexpected outcome of such conflicting perceptions is the current dilemma surrounding the question of the existence and extent of police brutality in American law enforcement.
Although a relatively strong and persistent public perception exists to the effect that police department administrations, public prosecutors, and judges and juries tend to turn a blind eye to civilian complaints of the use of excessive physical force, intimidation, and coercion by police officers, the facts of the matter are almost the opposite of the widely held pu...