Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailReading Time: 3 minutes

 

When police deal with the public, they have an obligation to behave in a specifically non-threatening manner. Unfortunately, there are times when some do not. When a police officer engages in physical violence or emotional outbursts against those they suspect are committing a crime, in order to defend their client, a Boston criminal attorney might have to call an expert reasonable witness. This witness is someone who testifies about the way that a police officer’s actions affected the scene of a crime and the charges that are filed against the criminal defendant.

 

When a police officer suspects that someone has committed a crime, there are acceptable ways that they can go about facing the suspect. In criminal law, the suspect is to be presumed innocent unless they are proved otherwise. When it comes to police brutality cases, part of the defense sometimes turns into an explanation of the objectivity of the incident. The job of a reasonable witness is to prove that the incident occurred because the officer’s obligation to remain objective was breached, and that that breach led to the person facing criminal charges by reacting the way that they did. It also has to be proved that it was those factors that lead the victim to be injured in the process.

 

The case then becomes not about whether the victim was innocent of the Boston crime they were originally suspected of or not, but whether the unreasonableness of the officer led to the arrest and injuries. Wrongful deaths and false-arrest lawsuits are typically filed in cases where the victim or the family of the victim seeks compensation for injuries or the death of their loved one.

 

An expert reasonable witness is typically called in police brutality cases to explain the ways in which the officer must conduct themselves when they suspect that someone is engaging in criminal activity. There are specific training and situational activities that police officers have to repeat to ensure that when confronted with real-life scenarios, they can conduct themselves in a reasonable manner to prevent things from escalating unnecessarily for both parties.

 

There are times when police officers are either unwilling or incapable of following the guidelines of reasonableness when confronting a suspect. When the officer refuses or doesn’t comply, the agency or department that employs them often faces litigation. The job of the Law Office of Frank Fernandez is to explain how force works and why the police officer failed to maintain objective reasoning guidelines in the incident.

 

 

 

Objective standards related to police brutality in Boston

 

When someone is arrested, the police officer is instructed to approach them without threat. The only time that a gun or other threat of violence can be employed is if there is a risk or danger posed to the officer. Unfortunately, since every case is different, maintaining reasonable objectivity is becoming increasingly difficult. Sometimes arrests are made with the presumption that someone is dangerous, like when there is a mistaken identity of the perpetrator, and can lead to those in police custody being arrested injured without cause or need.

 

The expert witness’s job in these types of cases is to explain a police officer’s obligation to remain objective even in the face of incriminating evidence. Officers are supposed to reserve judgment until the suspect is found guilty at trial. Any violence or attack on someone who is suspected of a crime is strictly prohibited by law.

 

Hindsight is 20/20 and there are times when a police officer can feel threatened in the face of a nonthreatening incident and make the wrong move, leading to someone’s injury. When it comes to police brutality, unless an officer is threatened in some physical way, they have an obligation to maintain a standard of nonviolence and never physically harming a suspect, even if there is incriminating evidence that they have committed a crime. 
In these cases, it is the expert witness’s job to explain the guidelines of reasonableness that law enforcement must operate under and to let the jury determine whether those guidelines were followed or not.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutube