sure you are 'certified' for the weapon that you are using" (3) as the number one issue. Makholm also recommends that the weapon be checked to see that it is working properly at all times. Another important point in the article is that the police must use good judgment and make sure they are not violating anyone's civil rights. Makholm (3) concludes by suggesting that every officer assess his conduct in light of how it will be viewed at a later time.
The community at large and the police departments may often be at odds about the use of force. Some activists feel the police over-=reacts, and often does so in minority areas. The police, on the other hand, tend to feel that worrying about the civil litigation that might result hinders them from doing the job- that is both preventing and solving crimes by nabbing the perpetrators. Nevertheless, civil litigation is costly for the police: "Suing the government is the second most popular indoor sport in America, and police are often the targets of lawsuits, with over 30,000 civil actions filed against them every year, between 4-8% of them resulting in an unfavorable verdict, where the average jury award is $2 million. This isn't even counting the hundreds of cases settled thru out-of-court settlements, which probably runs in the hundreds of millions and involves about half of all cases filed. It may take up to five years to settle a police liability case" (Anon 2004 1).
One might even suggest that police chiefs and mayors or city councils may hold their police departments to a certain standard that would err in the case of caution, thus avoiding the possibility of litigation which, even if won, would be costly in terms of legal expenses.
What are the positive aspects of the Makholm article? The perception that "non-lethal" weapons may still be lethal, as in the case of the student in Boston; and that police need to assess the consequences of using their weapons, even ...