What Would You Do? Case Studies
Reasonable Force Scenario
Early in the afternoon, a patrol officer notices two men, between 17 and 20 years of age, walking in the middle of the street. The street has no other traffic and is in a residential part of the city. The officer pulls alongside the two men and orders them to use the sidewalk rather than walk in the street. A brief argument ensues, during which verbal insults are exchanged. Infuriated by the officer’s response and his use of authority, one of the men reaches through the car window and grabs the officer’s shirt with one hand while trying to hit him with the other. During the exchange, the officer fears that the man is trying to reach into the patrol car to take his gun. The officer reaches for his gun.
Witnessing the exchange frightens the other man, who quickly runs from the area.
Deception Scenario
While investigating a string of burglaries, Officer Gordon finds a suspect that he is certain committed the crimes.He has no evidence, relying instead on his years of experience, his intuition, and his ever “accurate” sixth sense, all of which tell him the suspect is guilty.
Officer Gordon contacts the suspect and tells him that he wants to talk with him about the burglaries. He tells the suspect that he doesn’t care whether he cooperates—he can simply take the evidence he has amassed to the court and obtain a warrant for the suspect’s arrest. The suspect, fearing arrest and jail, meets with Officer Gordon at the police department for questioning. During the interview, Officer Gordon fabricates a story that convinces the suspect he has been caught.The suspect confesses to the burglaries, hoping that his cooperation will be viewed favorably by Officer Gordon. He is arrested and charged with seven counts pending a preliminary hearing.
Next page: The Facts Change
©2019 Walden University1
The Facts Change
Reasonable Force Scenario
The officer was in the neighborhood searching for two young men who reportedly committed a strong-arm robbery at a nearby convenience store. The clothing and physical appearance of the young men walking down the middle of the street match the descriptions provided by the victim. When the officer pulls alongside the two men and orders them to use the sidewalk rather than walk in the street, he also intends to get a closer look at the men and question them about their recent whereabouts. The men deny involvement or knowledge of the robbery, and from there the scenario escalates as described in the Week 1 Discussion.
Deception Scenario
The suspect may be developmentally delayed, and other officers inform Officer Gordon that the suspect idolizes police officers.If he were able to, he would be an officer.The suspect is known to make efforts to help or please the police, despite having been arrested for shoplifting in the past. The suspect was not given Miranda rights during the initial interrogation. The “interview” took place in a secure area of the police station where the suspect was not free to leave if he chose.
LW3003: The Use of Power in Law Enforcement: Distinguish between the appropriate uses of power, discretion, and deception in law enforcement practice.
Written Response Submission Form
Your Name: First and last
Your E-Mail Address: Your email here
Instructions
Write your responses where it reads “Enter your response here.” Write as much as needed to satisfy the requirements indicated. Each item contains the rubric that will be used to evaluate your responses.
©2019 Walden University 1
Item 1
Read the Reasonable Force scenario from the What Would You Do? Case Studies.
Then, in 250–500 words, do the following:
Describe the action(s) you would take in the circumstances described.
Explain your rationale for the action(s) you took.
Be sure to draw upon examples from the Learning Resources to support your response.
Your Response
Enter your response here.
Rubric
|
0
Not Present
|
1
Needs Improvement
|
2
Meets Expectations
|
Module 1: Reasonable Force
|
Describe the action(s) you would take in the circumstances described in the Reasonable Force scenario.
LO1: Determine whether to use reasonable force based on a scenario.
|
Response is not present.
|
The response describes actions taken that may not be fully reasonable and/or plausible in response to the circumstances described.
|
The response describes actions taken that are reasonable and plausible in response to the circumstances described.
|
Explain your rationale for the action(s) you took.
LO2: Evaluate law enforcement scenarios in order to make choices related to reasonable force.
|
Response is not present.
|
The response attempts to explain the rationale taken, but the explanation may not be as in depth as possible or may create doubt about the action taken in response to the scenario.
|
The response presents an in-depth rationale and thoroughly and logically explains the rationale taken in response to the scenario.
|
©2019 Walden University 2
Item 2
Reread the Reasonable Force scenario and your response to Item 1. You will take on the perspective of the roles noted in bold for the following prompts. Each response should be 250–500 words.
Evaluate the scenario and your response through the lens of a fellow police officer.
Evaluate the scenario and your response through the lens of a citizen.
Be sure to draw upon examples from the Learning Resources to support your response.
Your Response
Enter your response here.
Rubric
|
0
Not Present
|
1
Needs Improvement
|
2
Meets Expectations
|
Module 1: Reasonable Force
|
Evaluate the Reasonable Force scenario and your response through the lens of a fellow police officer.
LO4: Evaluate law enforcement scenarios involving reasonable force through an alternate perspective.
|
Response is not present.
|
The response attempts to provide a plausible and reasonable evaluation of the scenario and initial response through the lens of a fellow police officer, but the evaluation may lack depth, complete logic, or full plausibility.
The response attempts to provide the evaluation of a distinct perspective, but if the evaluation of this new perspective is similar to
|
The response provides a plausible and reasonable evaluation of the scenario and initial response through the lens of a fellow police officer.
The response provides the evaluation of a distinct perspective, and if the evaluation of this new perspective is similar to the initial response, it accounts for that fact and provides reasoning to support
|
©2019 Walden University 3
|
|
the initial response, it does not fully account for that fact with adequate reasoning or support.
|
the similarity.
|
Evaluate the Reasonable Force scenario and your response through the lens of a citizen.
LO5: Evaluate law enforcement scenarios involving reasonable force through an alternate perspective.
|
Response is not present.
|
The response attempts to provide a plausible and reasonable evaluation of the scenario and initial response through the lens of a citizen, but the evaluation may lack depth, complete logic, or full plausibility.
The response attempts to provide the evaluation of a distinct perspective, but if the evaluation of this new perspective is similar to the initial response, it does not fully account for that fact with adequate reasoning or support.
|
The response provides a plausible and reasonable evaluation of the scenario and initial response through the lens of a citizen.
The response provides the evaluation of a distinct perspective, and if the evaluation of this new perspective is similar to the initial response, it accounts for that fact and provides reasoning to support the similarity.
|
Item 3
Read “The Facts Change” Reasonable Force Scenario from the What Would You Do? Case Studies. Review your responses to Items 1 & 2. In 300 words, respond to the following:
Identify one changed circumstance that could lead to second-guessing your decisions in the reasonable force scenarios.
Explain why this new information might make you or others second-guess your decisions in the reasonable force scenarios.
Be sure to draw upon examples from the resources to support your response.
Your Response
©2019 Walden University 4
Enter your response here.
Rubric
|
0
Not Present
|
1
Needs Improvement
|
2
Meets Expectations
|
Module 1: Reasonable Force
|
Identify one changed circumstance that could lead to second-guessing your decision in the reasonable scenarios.
LO6: Identify circumstances that could lead to second-guessing decisions in reasonable force scenarios.
|
Response is not present.
|
Response contains a vague, inaccurate, and/or incompleteidentification of one changed circumstance that could lead to second-guessing a decision from the reasonable force scenarios.
|
Response provides a clear, accurate, and completeidentification of one changed circumstance that could lead to second-guessing a decision from the reasonable force scenarios.
|
Explain why this new information might make you or others second-guess your decisions in the reasonable force scenarios.
LO7: Analyze effects of new information on second-guessing decisions in reasonable force scenarios.
|
Response is not present.
|
Response contains a vague, inaccurate, and/or incompleteanalysis of why new information could prompt second-guessing in reasonable force scenarios
|
Response provides a clear, accurate, and completeanalysis of why new information could prompt second-guessing in reasonable force scenarios
|
Item 4
©2019 Walden University 5
Read the Deception scenario from the What Would You Do? Case Studies.
Then, in 250–500 words, do the following:
Describe the action(s) you would take in the circumstances described.
Explain your rationale for the action(s) you took.
Be sure to draw upon examples from the resources to support your response.
Your Response
Enter your response here.
Rubric
|
0
Not Present
|
1
Needs Improvement
|
2
Meets Expectations
|
Module 2: Deception
|
Describe the action(s) you would take in the circumstances described in the Deception scenario.
LO1: Determine whether to use deception based on a scenario.
|
Response is not present.
|
The response describes actions taken that may not be fully reasonable and/or plausible in response to the circumstances described.
|
The response describes actions taken that are reasonable and plausible in response to the circumstances described.
|
Explain your rationale for the action(s) you took.
LO2: Evaluate law enforcement scenarios in order to make choices related to deception.
|
Response is not present.
|
The response attempts to explain the rationale taken but the analysis may not be as in depth as possible or may create doubt about the action taken in response to the scenario.
|
The response presents an in-depth rationale and thoroughly and logically explains the rationale taken in response to the scenario.
|
©2019 Walden University 6
Item 5
Reread the Discretion scenario and your response to Item 2. You will take on the perspective of the role noted in bold for the following prompt. The response should be 250–500 words.
Evaluate the scenario and your response through the lens of the courts.
Be sure to draw upon examples from the resources to support your response.
Your Response
Enter your response here.
Rubric
|
0
Not Present
|
1
Needs Improvement
|
2
Meets Expectations
|
Module 2: Deception
|
Evaluate the Deception scenario and your response through the lens of the courts.
LO3: Evaluate law enforcement scenarios involving deception through an alternate perspective.
|
Response is not present.
|
The response attempts to provide a plausible and reasonable evaluation of the scenario and initial response through the lens of the courts, but the evaluation may lack depth, complete logic, or full plausibility.
The response attempts to provide the evaluation of a distinct perspective, but if the evaluation of this new perspective is similar to the initial response, it does not fully account for that fact with adequate reasoning or support.
|
The response provides a plausible and reasonable evaluation of the scenario and initial response through the lens of the courts.
The response provides the evaluation of a distinct perspective, and if the evaluation of this new perspective is similar to the initial response, it accounts for that fact and provides reasoning to support the similarity.
|
©2019 Walden University 7
Item 6
Read “The Facts Change” section of the scenarios from the What Would You Do? Case Studies found in the resources. Review your responses to Items 4 & 5. In 300 words, respond to the following:
Identify one changed circumstance that could lead to second-guessing your decisions in the deception scenarios.
Explain why this new information might make you or others second-guess your decisions in the deception scenarios.
Be sure to draw upon examples from the resources to support your response.
Your Response
Enter your response here.
©2019 Walden University 8
Rubric
|
0
Not Present
|
1
Needs Improvement
|
2
Meets Expectations
|
Module 2: Deception
|
Identify one changed circumstance that could lead to second-guessing your decisions in the deception scenarios.
LO4: Identify circumstances that could lead to second-guessing decisions in deception scenarios.
|
Response is not present.
|
Response contains a vague, inaccurate, and/or incompleteidentification of one changed circumstance that could lead to second-guessing a decision from the deception scenarios.
|
Response provides a clear, accurate, and completeidentification of one changed circumstance that could lead to second-guessing a decision from deception scenarios.
|
Explain why this new information might make you or others second-guess your decisions in the deception scenarios.
LO5: Analyze effect of new information on second-guessing decisions in deception scenarios.
|
Response is not present.
|
Response contains a vague, inaccurate, and/or incompleteanalysis of why new information could prompt second-guessing in reasonable force and deception scenarios
|
Response provides a clear, accurate, and completeanalysis of why new information could prompt second-guessing in deception scenarios
|
©2019 Walden University 9
References
Provide a citation for each resource you used to write your response to this Assessment. The following citation has been provided as an example:
Brandl, S. G. (2018).Police in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications
©2019 Walden University 10
Mastery Rubric
In order to achieve mastery of this Competency, you must achieve a “2” on every rubric row in addition to meeting the additional expectation indicated in the Mastery Rubric.
Mastery Rubric
|
No
|
Yes
|
Exceeds Expectations: Connections to Experience
|
Compares life experiences and academic knowledge to infer differences and similarities between concepts, theories, and/or frameworks of fields of study.
|
Responses do not integrate professional knowledge and experience from the criminal justice discipline when applied to appropriate uses of power, discretion, and deception in law enforcement practice
|
Responses integrate professional knowledge and experience from the criminal justice discipline when applied to appropriate uses of power, discretion, and deception in law enforcement practice.
|
Professional Skills Assessment
In this Competency Assessment, you will be assessed on the following Professional Skills: Written Communication. These skills count toward your achievement of the Competency and the Professional Skills.
Written Communication: Write with clarity, coherence, and purpose.
|
|
0
Not Present
|
1
Needs Improvement
|
2
Meets Expectations
|
LO1: Construct complete and correct sentences. (AWE 2; Sentence Level Skills)
|
Sentences are incoherent and impede reader’s access to ideas.
|
Sentences are incomplete and/or include fragments and run-on sentences, limiting reader’s access to ideas.
|
Sentence structure effectively conveys meaning to the reader.
|
LO2: Demonstrate the effective use of grammar and mechanics. (AWE 2; Sentence Level Skills)
|
Multiple inaccuracies in grammar and mechanics impede reader’s access to ideas.
|
Some inaccuracies in grammar and mechanics limit reader’s access to ideas.
|
Use of grammar and mechanics is straightforward and effectively conveys meaning to reader.
|
LO3: Create cohesive paragraphs with a clear central idea. (AWE 2; Paragraph Level
|
Paragraphs, or lack of paragraphs, impede reader’s access to ideas.
|
Construction of main idea and/or supporting paragraphs limit reader’s access to ideas.
|
Main idea and/or supporting paragraphs effectively convey meaning to reader.
|
©2019 Walden University 11
Skills)
|
|
|
|
LO4: Use supporting material to support a claim. (AWE 2; Use of Evidence)
|
Supporting materials are not present.
|
Supporting material is used inconsistently or inappropriately.
|
Supporting material is used to enhance meaning. Writing is appropriately paraphrased and uses direct quotes as applicable.
|
LO5: Demonstrate appropriate essay level writing skills, providing transitions between an introduction, body, and conclusion. (AWE 2; Essay Level Skills)
|
Ideas are disorganized with no/poor transitions.
|
Ideas are loosely organized with unclear paragraphing and transitions.
|
Ideas are organized with cohesive transitions.
|
LO6: Identify sources. (AWE 2; Credit to source)
|
Sources are missing.
|
Writing inconsistently identifies or misrepresents sources.
|
Writing clearly identifies the source of non-original material and/or ideas.
|