Reasonable Use

This text is a study of the impact of industrialization and urbanization on the environment of New England in general and the Connecticut River Valley in particular, and of the varied public responses to the change engendered by the impact. Part one begins with a look at the early ways of life in the valley such as the struggle to extract a living and the transformation away from settled agriculture. Part two looks at the responses to these changes and into the roots of emerging social, economic, and political conflicts in the region. Part three argues that out of these conflicts emerged the idea of the state as mediating influence.

Whether or not to use force is the most serious decision and one of the most significant interactions law enforcement officers can have with citizens. The decisions made by political and administrative officials when they determine matters of policy, or the decisions made by individual officers in split seconds, may be of life or death importance. The determination of the proper use of force by law enforcement at both administrative and individual levels is crucial for both law enforcement and for the public to maintain order, protect society, enforce just laws, and reasonably respect and protect the rights of civilian citizens. Typically a successful use of force accomplishes an actual seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore seizures are examined as Fourth Amendment issues in this book. The most basic and generalizable legal standard for the use of force is «reasonableness», and this book examines the reasonableness of the use of force in a number of situations, both real and hypothetical. Reasonable Use of Force by Police is intended for use in police training, police departments, universities, and by anyone interested in understanding the standards of reasonable use of force by police and other law enforcement officers.

Nineteenth-century Britain witnessed a dramatic increase in its town population, as a hitherto largely rural economy transformed itself into an urban one. Though the political and social issues arising from these events are well-known, little is known about how the British legal process coped with the everyday strains that emerged from the unprecedented scale of these changes. This book explores the river pollution dilemma faced by the British courts during the second half of the nineteenth century when the legal process had to confront the new incompatible realities arising from the increasing amounts of untreatable waste flowing into the rivers. This dilemma struck at the heart of both Victorian urban and rural society, as the necessary sanitary reformation of the swelling cities and expanding industry increasingly poisoned the rivers, threatening the countryside and agricultural rents and livelihoods. Focusing on ten legal disputes, the book investigates the dilemma that faced the courts; namely how to protect the traditional and valued rights of landholders whose rivers and lands were being polluted by industrial waste and untreated sewage, whilst not hindering the progress of sanitary reform and economic progress in the towns. The case studies considered involve major industrialising centres, such as Birmingham, Leeds, Northampton, Wolverhampton and Barnsley, but also include smaller towns such as Tunbridge Wells, Leamington Spa and Harrogate. The fundamental issues raised remain as important today as they did in Victorian times. The need for the courts to balance a variety of conflicting needs and rights within the limits of contemporary technological capabilities often played out in surprising ways, with outcomes not always in line with theoretical expectations. As such the historical context of the disputes provide fascinating insights into nineteenth-century legal process, and the environmental and social attitudes of the times.

Includes the decisions of the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and Court of Appeals of New York; May/July 1891-Mar./Apr. 1936, Appellate Court of Indiana; Dec. 1926/Feb. 1927-Mar./Apr. 1936, Courts of Appeals of Ohio.