The arguments against police brutality are generally of three types. 1) The police job is to enforce the law and bring the perpetrator to justice...not to assume guilt or innocence. 2) The police look bad when they use police brutality. If is a poor role model for behavior. People can think, well..if the police can beat people up, why can't I? 3) Most important it sends a terrible message to others about the credibility (believability) of the system or state which allows police brutality to happen. Therefore, if police brutality becomes acceptable in a place, over time the public becomes aware of this and ends up ostracizing (avoiding) the state or area in which this occurs.Eventually the public trust in the legal system is undermined when police brutality is allowed to continue.
YAAAAAY
The Brown Berets formed in response to police brutality against Mexican Americans in Los Angeles.
Yes! Why wouldn't it be? That man/woman is not a monkey
black panther
Simon Commission
Black Panthers
Police brutality has been reported to have increased since the 9/11 attacks, but there are no published statistics on the frequency of police brutality actions.
Collective Opposed to Police Brutality was created in 1995.
There can be no justification for brutality. The job of the police is to protect and defend.
No-one should "do" police brutality, that's why it's called brutality rather than reasonable force, which is what police officers should use.
Laws exist against police brutality. Either police are brutal or they are not brutal. If they are found guilty of violating a persons civil rights in a court of law, a judge may choose to add time to a jail or prison sentence for a particular reason. Still, while that reason could be a part of the original charge, it would not be the reason for the original charge against the policeman.
Shailendra Misra has written: 'Police Brutality' -- subject(s): Police brutality