Abstract
The 1990s witnessed a fundamental change in policy regarding the provisionfor officer safety, both in training and protective equipment. Police officers
began to be trained in unarmed methods of controlling non-compliant people
and were equipped with protective body armour, rigid handcuffs and an array
of different batons. Even these advances in training and equipment were not
considered adequate for delivering officer safety until CS spray was added to
the belt of the front line officer. CS spray can incapacitate people by
temporarily restricting their ability to see and breathe. While there is no
conclusive evidence suggesting that it is the best means of protection, police
officers believe it to be the best.
The routine deployment of CS spray has been controversial, with significant
negative media coverage causing concern for the legitimacy of the police.
However, this did not dampen the enthusiasm for this weapon with police
officers. This study examined why CS spray was so popular with the police by
assessment of (1) how the deployment of CS spray has affected the relationship
between the public and the police, (2) how the police conceive the concepts of
danger and fear in relation to their perception of safety, (3) the reasons for the
popularity of CS spray with police, which is discussed in the context of
alternative officer safety options, and (4) the most appropriate way of
regulating the discretion of officers armed with CS spray.
This thesis critically evaluates the officer safety programme in order to propose
a shift in emphasis away from an officer-centric safety programme ( e.g., 'the
conflict resolution model') towards a programme that considers both police and
civilian safety ( e.g., 'the continuum of force'). Such a proposal will hopefully
afford the police and the public better protection.
| Date of Award | Jan 2005 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisor | Roy King (Supervisor) & Mary Rawlinson (Supervisor) |