Necessary force vs. excessive force in policing?

write an essay which analyses/discusses in depth a LEGAL issue that was in the case you briefed

sources have to be Canadian – such as referencing the

criminal code of Canada
CANLII

the legal issue to discuss in case & analyze:

– necessary vs. excessive use of force by police officers

– reference a legal case in the essay to show how it relates and how the law has been used before – use CANLII for this

Your sources (a minimum of two sources is required) must be: proper legal or academic articles; media reports and commentary by non-professionals do not qualify, nor do cases themselves. I want you to analyse the issue and learn something about it, not just repeat what was in a case or in the media.

I also want you to use your sources well; not just repeating or quoting the source, but referring to it in a way that shows you have read, understood, and thought about the concepts included in the reference source. The sources must form a part of your analysis – you can agree or disagree with what they say, but make a logical argument.

You can find legal sources through CanLII and academic sources through the library databases (we will discuss this in the legal research section)

In-text referencing:

You do not need to reference every little thing; try to put the entirety of the point and then in-text reference, e.g. “X argues…”(X, 2013 p.xx) which the reader can then follow up with (if they want to) through your reference page. If you are referencing a case, it would be “In A v. B, the court (or the specific judge) found…..”(A v. B (2015) para.xx) – the citation of a specific statement in a case requires that you cite the specific paragraph(s) where they say this.

Another important point: in your analysis essay, do not include “I think/argue/propose”; first person references are not appropriate here. You must state things without reference to yourself.

Do not provide your personal emotional assessment or opinion here; law is not a place for that. It frankly does not matter how you feel about something, it is what the law says that matters. You can argue for or against a proposition but it must be well-reasoned, not emotional.