The authority of law enforcement agencies to use force.

```html

As frequently mentioned in the laws, the protection of national security, public order, public health, and morality, the prevention of crimes, and the establishment of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary are extremely important issues. One of the most important tools for achieving this is the need for the power of public officials, referred to as law enforcement officers (armed) who have the authority to use force when necessary. In addition, the personal security, bodily integrity, reputation, and rights of individuals that make up society are also very important. One of the most important tools for achieving this is ensuring that citizens are safe from the power of force. Although these two tools complement each other when necessary, we sometimes encounter two situations that are almost in conflict with each other. In fact, each of these two situations is essential to the matter. In other words, they have a complementary nature like halves of an apple. It is difficult for one to function without the other.

THE MEDAL HAS TWO SIDES

Firstly, from the perspective of officials with the authority to use force, the reputation of public administration and the establishment of discipline within the administration, as well as the trust and confidence the public has in public officials, are at stake. Conversely, from the perspective of citizens, bodily integrity, honor, and dignity come into play. Therefore, it is indisputable that everyone should act within the limits set by law or regulation. The essence of the matter is that citizens should be aware that they are responsible for assisting officials, who are tasked with ensuring the peace and security of individuals and society, and that officials are also obliged to ensure the safety and peace of citizens and society.

MISTAKES MADE

As can be seen, to some extent, officials do not know the powers and limits regarding the use of force in the legislation. The deterrent effect of hearing about penalties imposed as a result of investigations and prosecutions, along with news or publications viewed from different perspectives, can lead law enforcement officers to behave more cautiously. Despite the legal conditions being met, they may hesitate to take actions that involve the use of force at the scene due to a lack of sufficient knowledge or equipment, ignorance of the law, or the fear of facing judicial-administrative penalties. In contrast, different behaviors may be exhibited in service units. The following characterization in a Supreme Court decision can be cited as an example: The statements of the participant (F) and eyewitnesses that the participant (I) was not assaulted by the defendants during the handcuffing, along with the statement of participant (I) that he was beaten by defendants (K) and (N) after being brought to the police station, and the findings in the forensic report supporting the statement, indicate that the injuries described in the participant could not have occurred during the handcuffing. In light of this, it was determined that there was sufficient evidence regarding the establishment of the crime, and the actions of the defendants constituted the crime regulated by Articles 256, 86/2, and 86/3-d of the Turkish Penal Code, and the acquittal decisions given without proper justification were subject to reversal. (4th Criminal Chamber, 28.09.2015, E.2015/15462, K.2015/34240) Again, in another case that went to appeal, it was determined that the defendant, who was serving as a police officer, injured the participant by hitting him after his capture and incapacitation, and that the actions taken after the participant was captured could not be evaluated within the limits of the authority to use force. It was understood that the participant consistently gave similar statements during the proceedings and clearly identified the defendant, leading to a decision to punish the defendant for the alleged crime. (The acquittal decision given by the first instance court was overturned, and a conviction was issued. Ankara Regional Court of Appeals, 5th Criminal Chamber, 25.10.2023, E.2022/1312, K.2023/2258)

In general, it has been considered that discussing the following recommendations may be beneficial;

1- Raising awareness,

2- Fully learning the relevant legislation, evaluating court, appeal, and Supreme Court decisions that can serve as examples with the evolving situations from time to time,

3- Common sense, calmness, and responsible behavior,

4- Complete and proper identification of evidence,

5- The importance of forensic reports, which must be in accordance with the procedure and material truth,

6- Understanding that leaving without taking action or departing from the scene may lead to greater problems,

7- Investigating the reasons for the general behavior of officials and taking precautions within the circumstances and conditions,

8- Providing periodic training in both pre-service and in-service training, listening to the situations faced by law enforcement, reporting them, and evaluating them. There will be another article regarding recommendations on this matter.

Source:

1- Authority to Use Force - Exceeding the Limits of Authority, Istanbul, Filiz Publishing House, 2024

2- https://www.yenisafak.com/dusunce-gunlugu/kollugun-zor-kullanma-yetkisi-4655663