Police Brutality on the Big screen (John)

Movies and Media are representations of events undergoing in our society. What may be happening on our streets may just become a recreated image of a more drastic problem. On the big screen there are many reoccurrences of police crossing between the acting as a Police officer doing their job, and the image of abusing their poor. Police being aggressiveness can be link to a very dangerous cultural problem in American society.
Television wasn’t recreated until the beginning of the mid-twentieth century.
Most of the first movies, of course in black-in white, were all-time classics of universal love-stories. Eventually, movies and directors want to take these classics in to more action/adventure approach, and upgrading with excessive violence. The resulting balance created these old gangster and mob movies. For example the movie called “Scarface.” The idea was to entertain the entire audience by designing villainous criminals working for the mob ad disobeying the law and not playing by the rules. Scarface’s character is symbolic profile for personifying the aspects of a realistic Mob dealer, Al Capone, from the roaring twenties days in Chicago. This twentieth century film showed the Chicago Police force being as cruel and wicked as the Mob dealer’s character being portrayed. The plot was a simple series of events that later led to the Police force by any means, working to apprehend their suspect. The Police force were endangering many civilians to capture their man. Army tanks were even being used in blowing up neighborhoods. Also people suspected of working for the mob were either shot or killed, with out warning. The police wanted the villainous “Scarface” DEAD or ALIVE!
If you didn’t know the fact that police are protectors for the innocent, and upholders of justice, the police would look just like the “bad guys” in this particular film. Police were shooting and killing as much as the mobs were doing. The mob was the syndicate for injustice and villainy in their city. The police were tired of recapturing and releasing mob dealer’s back on the street, so they wanted to target their main culprits, to remove the plague of mobs. One inference that can made from the plot is that the Justice System and Law enforcement is weak and in-effective. The “good cop routine” was a joke when compared to these highly advanced and intelligent criminals. This is why the Police Chief in the movie wanted the mob to literally die out, if they wanted to return peace and justice That is why the Protagonist, Head of all other officers, wanted to all the Chicago police force to shoot first, and question later. Police according to this film, wanted to show not only the mob, but society as a whole as we mean business. This is an attempt to explain why police are brutal, but is does not explain the justification behind these inhumane actions.
Moving forward in this timeline, in stead of gangster movies, many movies now show officers in stead of acting brutal on the street, more brutal in their habitat, jail and prison penitentiaries. The modern classic would be Shawshank Redemption, starring Morgan Freeman. This movie showed how cruel officers could be behind their own closed doors. This is a non-fictional story. The characters are based on true people as well. The main character named Ande Dupree, who will spend life in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. The reality is that, this movie revealed a side of the law enforcement‘s abuse of power, which is detestable to the public’s eye. The warden and lieutenant Bradley are both abusing power. They run the prisons using brutality at an alarming rate. Since they are corrupt individuals, they killed people who had information of their embezzlements, and attacked inmates of Shawshank to a point where they needed intensive care. When criminals are brought to justice and taken to a federal penitentiary, no one can know for sure what happens to them, because most of them will never step another foot outside beyond their walls. The author wants the viewers to critically question society’s law enforcement actions. Do people who serve, protect, and uphold the law have the right to treat individuals who fall victim to the law with inhuman actions, without any justification of their actions.
An officer’s only primary purpose is to serve for the public good. As the author of the Shawshank Redemption and Scarface tried to illustrate, does it really matter how an officer does his job, whether or not he decides to use excessive power or moderate enforcement procedures to serve for the common good.
Numerous deaths are reported each year caused by police. This is one of the big problems with police brutality. Safe and effective law enforcement is a vital ingredient for a stabilized society. Innocent victims should not have to fear criminals, nor should they fear are own police. Everyone is concerned with their own safety and for the safety of their friend, family and relatives. Aggressiveness in police oppression only can lead to the jeopardy of the one’s we care about. This mentality that is being portrayed in much of the media we see today, only adds to the consequences of the empowering body of law and service of our Enforcement officers.
No matter if an individual is convicted of a crime or is suspected of probable cause, it is the obligation of our American Judiciary System and Due process of law to determine whether or not a person should die, according to the death penalty. These unnecessary deaths due to brutal officers is simply out of control. To further engage in the number of casualties each year, only subjects the American public to more oppression.
On the big screen, it is rather convincing that the actors are only acting. In real public streets and sidewalks, individuals being abused by an officer is representation of how the society reflects how justice should be enacted. This is not an uncommon scenario or a rare moment in our lives. More and more crooked cops are walking in our streets. To watch an innocent person be nearly killed for a small misdemeanor is evidence that the Public as a whole supports that are cops need to do what ever is necessary for the good of the public.
Police should not be any more above the law than any other American citizen. In much of the media and movies, especially that we see today, we let these oppressive cops get a way with abuse. The message is implying that police oppression is right. Police oppression is part of the duty of an officer to serve and up hold righteousness. Seeing an officer kill someone in these movies is saying that, as an officer, it is an officer’s duty to execute those responsible for being insubordinate to the law, regardless of how significant or superficial the crime committed has been.
American government is upheld by law enforcement. The way in which law enforcement conduct this process is the reflection of American society functioning as a whole. American government is a people’s democracy, a government run by the people. Likewise, Law enforcement should be uphold the same principles, a government ruled by the people for the people.

Sources
What side are you on.10 novemeber2007
http://www.bolshevik.org/1917/no30/no30-Screws_out_PCS.html

Explaining police acts of integrity.
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/1/1/5/p201155_index.html

What the police do.
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/UNDERZONE/about-us/what-do.htm

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111161/

Scarface: The shae of a nation
http://www.filmsite.org/scar.html

works cited-community relationship

Brown, Ben. An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management. Perception of the police, past finding, methodological issue, conceptual issue.2002. 17 Dec 2008.
http://heinonline.org.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/polic25&id=1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/polic

Collins, Allyson. Shielded from Justice. Human Rights Watch.1998

Williams, Sherwood. "American Journal of Police 1983-1984". Situational use of Police force: Public Reacation. http://heinonline.org.proxy.lib.wayne.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ajpol3&id=1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/ajpol

Oath of Honor. Internationl Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). 15 May 2006. http://www.town.madison.wi.us/police/oath/ooh.htm.

police and community relations-conclusion

When officers engage in police brutality, they are disrespecting the people they are hired to protect. Officers seem to have forgotten that they are civil servants and the public is their boss. as their boss, citizens will not tolerate the wrongful beating of members of the community. i cannot stress the fact that the police need the community help and the community needs the police help. when police brutality occurs, "public distrust of the police my be reduce the ability of the police to control citizens who are dissatisfied with the police, are less likely to control them or provide officers with information about criminal activity. This is important because it indicates that fear of crime lowers evaluation. Thus, it is conceivable that regulate perception of the police contribute to a cycle of reduced police effectiveness, increased crime and further distrust of the police"(Brown). In order for there to peace between the police and the community officers involve in police brutality must face punishment for their actions. citizens deserve justice, when justice in not given, the entire Judaical system is tainted in the eyes of the community.

Works Cited (Bryce)

WORKS CITED
Does ‘24’ encourage interrogators to ‘torture’ detainees? By Tom Regan
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0212/p99s01-duts.html

Torture and 24 by Kevin Drumhttp://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_02/005701.php

“24:” Torture on TV
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/157437

Fear Factor: How Far can Police go for a Confession?
http://people.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=police-interrogation.htm&url=http://www.courttv.com/archive/movie/crowe/fear.html

"24" Cont. (Bryce)

All these things he does, however are not legal. They were outlawed quite some time ago. Beating a confession out of clients was outlawed in the 1940’s. Any violence at all, as a matter a fact was deemed illegal. Some officers would deprive suspects of sleep, deny them food and water, drug them, hang them from windows, even using unbearable smells to get a confession. In some cases, the police would get false confessions just so that they would stop their interrogation.
Most of the tactics used in “24” are actually far from what actual interrogators will do. As previously stated, the suspects cannot be harmed physically. Interrogators actually have a handbook they learn from. There are essentially nine steps they take towards getting a confession out of a suspect. Of course not all of them use the techniques stated in the handbook word for word.
New officers coming into police forces, the army, or any enforcement agency, at least some of them actually sort idolize Bauer’s use of violence. The military spoke out on what they think the show is doing, “…hurting efforts to train recruits in effective interrogation techniques and is damaging the image of the US around the world.” US Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan said this when he actually came onto the set of “24” and met with the creative team. In an interview with Gary Solis, a retired law professor also said that many of his students took on Bauer’s motto of “Whatever it takes.” He then said, “I tried to impress on them that this technique would open the wrong doors, but it was like trying to stomp out an anthill.” How big is this actually becoming?
Some interrogators are using these techniques in the field. Actually, there has been a rise in these cases as the number of scenes of torture appear more frequently in the show. There have been more than seven hundred investigations of abuse within the Army. Out of that seven hundred there have been about twenty-five deaths that have been ruled as homicides. Many organizations are trying to push the point that torture by Americans is not tolerated within their ranks. The Human Rights Group is the one of the groups doing so. They were the ones who arranged the meeting between the creative team of “24” and the military officers.
There are some that however disagree with this, that Jack Bauer influenced these deaths within the custody of the army. Rick Moran of the American Thinker says that:“I have no doubt that General Finnegan and the agents are genuinely concerned about the show's impact on the troops. But the idea that some of the abuse of prisoners meted out by American soldiers is the result of watching a television show is absurd on its face. Blame it on our not giving the prisoners Geneva Convention protections or on poor discipline or leadership. But the intelligence professionals who carry out the overwhelming number of interrogations on prisoners can't all be that stupid. ...”
This is all somewhat correct. Anyone who gets to become an interrogator isn’t stupid enough to go against regulations and actually break the law by killing their suspects. They go through years of training, and know what is and what isn’t the correct way to go about things in the interrogation booth. This job requires a large amount of wit to be able to wage a psychological war against the suspect. I’m saying that in general, you have to be pretty smart to be able to meet the standards of this job. In the case of these homicides however, one death by one person represents the entire organization and shows that there is some sort of flaw in the system that allowed for this to happen. The people who have committed this atrocity have been prosecuted, but while this trend remains small, will it continue to grow as “24” continues? It will. 24 has the most torture scenes of any show on television to date. The methods of torture shown in the show are sometimes more creative than the one before it.
A show that illustrates torture as how we Americans get our work done is simply incorrect. It does not give those who watch it the right to act out what happens, it only puts a damper on our society and in general makes the US look bad. True, the demographic of death while in US custody is small; this represents the organization and everyone in it. Death is something to not be taken lightly, especially where it is not necessary in the least. That is why violence against suspects was outlawed in the first place, so this doesn’t happen.

I’m wondering why police brutality occurs. What factors lead officers to beat or possibly kill citizens; could it be stress, they feel threaten by possible suspects or could it they just want to remind citizens who is in charge. Is there really a good reason for officers to “rough up” suspects? I believe the only reason officers need to physically touch a suspect is to restrain him/her. Once a suspect is restrained officers have no reason to physically touch the suspect. “One study has concluded that police use of violence is a result of their responses to community characteristics. In communities where violence is a common method of resolving conflict, they suggest that the police are most likely to adapt similar means in their reactions to community problems”(Williams). That quote is twenty-seven years old but it could still be used to understand the use of police violence to a certain point. I agree that if the police get a call dealing with violent behavior in an area known for its mishaps, the police should take that in consideration when handling the situation. Going into a bad neighborhood does not mean walk in the community with gun in hand ready to kill. With a mind like that, the outcome is going to be nasty. I admit being a police officer is a very stressful job, but I could not understand how stress or anything work related could lead officers to beat citizens. If leaders of the police department believe one of their officers is dealing with a high level of stress and is a possible danger to the community, it is the commander’s job to put the officer on leave. That does not happen quite often. Too many officers on the force have possible allegation of brutality on their record and the police do nothing about it. Commanders are allowing officers to walk around as ticking bombs. Not taking in consideration the citizens, their lives or job or the victims live.Could it be that they do not realize “public hostility toward the police can affect the careers of officers, adminastors and even politicians”(Brown). I think if they understood that having a bad relationship with the community would end their careers, adminastors would not sit back and tolerate police brutality. I think there lies the problem, officers are not losing their job, and therefore they are going to keep engaging in police brutality

"24" and Police Brutality

The show on the Fox network, “24” Represents something that our operational organizations do not condone. That thing is torture of apprehended suspects during interrogation. This is something that has not just happened just once, but several times on the show. The things that Jack Bauer (The main character of “24”) does to his suspects misrepresents the justice system’s way of interrogating possible suspects to a crime. This has become a problem due to that this behavior has become so glorified that interrogators are mimicking Bauer’s actions in their own body of work.

What happens on “24” is not interrogation; there are some people that would say that this is torture—I count myself as one of those people .Take for example a scene, when Jack comes into a interrogation room and shoots the suspect in the kneecap, promising another bullet if he didn’t talk. Of course; the guy tells Jack what he needs to know. Not only this, but they also get to the wife of a terrorist. At the time she was suffering from a gunshot wound, and of course she won’t say what needs to be known. So a member of Jack’s back-up squad sticks his thumb in the wound and twists around, demanding she talk if she wants him to cease.