Schuster Critical Thinking Evaluation Paper Police Brutality 1

Schuster Critical Thinking Evaluation Paper

Michael Schuster

State University of New York College at Oswego

Seminar in Public Justice

Professor Kurst-Swanger

April 6, 2015

Police Brutality 2

Abstract

This paper compares the works of three scholarly articles by Terrill, W., & Paoline, E.

(2013), Schatmeier, E. (2013) &(Jennings, Fridell & Lynch, 2014) to Kelly Stanlon’s

presentation on police brutality. In it similarities between the articles are compared and then

related to Stanlon’s presentation

Police Brutality 3

The first article that I have chosen to analyze the topic of police brutality through is:

Reforming Police Use-of-Force Practices: A Case Study of the Cincinnati Police Department by

Elliot Harvey Schatmeier. This article centers on the reformation of the Cincinnati Police

Department under the Department of Justice (DOJ). Schatmeier discusses how certain obstacles

cause the DOJ in most cases, to fail in ensuring reform, with her analysis of the successful

reformation of the Cincinnati Police Department (CPD). She further notes that the successful

reformation of the CPD despite the failures of the DOJ is primarily due to the agreements

reached with the city of Cincinnati and the DOJ and between the city and representative groups

of Cincinnati’s black residents. “This Note argues that Cincinnati Police Department’s success

can be explained by the innovative design of its agreement, which stresses the principles of

democratic experimentalism — including a flexible and goal-oriented approach, stakeholder

deliberation, regulatory transparency, and enforcement mechanisms governing the

implementation of the agreement’s terms.”(Schatmeier, 2013)

As noted by (Schatmeier, 2013) Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 14141 to correct systemic

unlawful use-of-force practices in police departments across the country in response to Rodney

King Riots, which were sparked after police used excessive force in the beating of Rodney King

Jr. Under Section 14141, the Attorney General can file a civil action against any police

department that consistently violates a citizen’s constitutional rights as a means of corrective

action. Although such civil suits did not achieve reform 100% of the time, it was capable of

achieving it as noted with the CPD. As mentioned earlier, agreements brought about by the

investigation of the department resulted in notable improvements within the department and how

the officers policed the area. Such improvements were that officers began using force less

frequently and when they did use force, used safer forms of it. Civilian complaints throughout

Police Brutality 4

the city dropped and civilian attitudes about the CPD improved as crime rates dropped and as the

CPD implemented community oriented and problem-solving policing techniques (Schatmeier,

2013).

The reformation process of the CPD began after the DOJ received complaints of rioting

over death of Timothy Thomas. In response, an initial inquiry was conducted in order to

establish the presence of excessive force alleged by these complaints. If found, a formal

investigation of the agency is conducted. During this time the DOJ conducts interviews with

police command staff, the police union, officers, and community leaders; it also attends and

reviews police training sessions, assesses the agency’s disciplinary practices, and reviews its

records and procedures for civilian complaints (Schatmeier, 2013). Upon completion of the

investigation, a Technical Assistance Letter may be given to the department to correct these

violations, as well as a Findings Letter which is released to the public indicating if a civil suit can

be filed against the department. At this point, most agencies sign a settlement agreement termed

a “memorandum of agreement” (MOA), which mandates particular courses of action in order to

prevent excessive force violations, if not alleviating them. The mandates for the CPD were as

follows: 1) draft substantive and procedural use-of-force policies and retrain officers

accordingly. 2) Institute use-of-force reporting and review, internal investigations and civilian

empowered review of police misconduct. 3) Purchase and implement an early-warning tracking

system for discovering and monitoring officers that do not follow the police department’s newly

proscribed guidelines (Schatmeier, 2013). As mentioned earlier, this was one of the two

agreements contributing the successful reformation of the CPD. The other agreement was a

collaborative agreement (CA) between the City, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), and the

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Cincinnati Black United Front (CBUF) as class

Police Brutality 5

representatives on behalf of Cincinnati’s black residents (Schatmeier, 2013). While the MOA

addressed the CPD’s use-of-force issues, the CA required that the CPD adopt problem-oriented

policing to enhance community interaction. This type of policing increased the frequency of

positive interactions between police and the community and its leaders (Schatmeier, 2013).

The successful implementation of reformation associated with the CPD can be attributed

to how the agreements were able to the obstacles to the proposed use-of-force policies. Some

examples to such reforms are: resistance from officers to the MOA, poor leadership and lax

enforcement by court-appointed monitors. The rationale for why officers would not accept an

MOA, is that the public would perceive it as an admission of guilt, cause unnecessary oversight

and challenge their professionalism. Poor, hostile or stubborn leadership can result in the failure

to acknowledge officer misconduct. In regards to law enforcement by court-appointed monitors,

a conflicted monitor that expresses loyalty to an interested party can undermine compliance or

stifle reforms. Also a monitor with prior history in police practices, such as an ex-police chief,

may be especially receptive to excuses made by the police department that compliance is

impossible within a certain time frame (Schatmeier, 2013).

The reason for success within the CPD is largely due to the agreements outlined in the

CA. In the CA, regulations were goal-oriented and experimental, which allowed parties to set

target goals for regulating the agency. Shareholder negotiation was also incorporated in that, the

terms of the CA were drafted in response to recommendations made by police experts, eight

interest key community interest groups and over 700 citizen questionnaires. (Schatmeier, 2013).

Regulatory Transparency also contributed to the success found within the CPD in that it made

the terms of the agreement clear and available to the public.

Police Brutality 6

Based on the success of reformation within the CPD demonstrates methods for the

reformation of other police departments in future cases. (As Schatmeier, 2013) noted The CPD

successfully reduced use-of-force violations, increased citizen satisfaction with the police

department, and changed the culture of Cincinnati’s policing from a militaristic model to one

emphasizing problem-solving and community interaction. However, given the DOJ’s structure

and implementation of its MOA it is highly unlikely that success within a future police agency

would occur, unless other measures like those mandated by the CA were to be incorporated.

The second article that I have chosen to analyze the topic of police brutality through is:

Cops and cameras: Officer Perceptions of the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in Law Enforcement

by Wesley G. Jennings, Lorie A. Fridell, Mathew D. Lynch. This article centers on the public’s

recent desire for the incorporation of Body-Worn Cameras (BWC) amongst law enforcement

agencies. The purpose of this study was to provide some of the first ever evidence of this

information through a study of officers involved in a randomized experiment evaluating the

impact of body-worn cameras in law enforcement (Jennings, Fridell & Lynch, 2014). As noted

by Jennings et al policing has been witness to a significant amount of problematic issues

(Blackwell & Vaughn, 2003; Kowalski & Lundman, 2007; McElvain & Kposowa, 2004; Phillips

& Varano, 2008; Weir, Stewart, & Morris, 2012; Weitzer, 2002; Zhao, Ren, & Lovrich, 2010) as

well as innovation and change in recent years (Culver, 2004; Zhao, Lovrich, & Robinson, 2001).

A prime example of which are of the events surrounding the stop and frisk activities performed

by the New York Police Department (NYPD) and the Michael Brown case, resulting in

increasing pressure on police departments from the media to incorporate body-worn cameras into

practice. The expectation was that BWCs will to increase “by the book policing” and increase

perception of officer safety by serving as documentary evidence.

Police Brutality 7

To gain feedback, a study of officer perceptions toward body-worn cameras on the Orlando

Police Department (OPD) was conducted by (Jennings, Fridell & Lynch, 2014). The study called

for the collection of baseline data from surveys administered to Orlando Police officers who

were participants in a randomized experiment evaluating the impact of body-worn cameras

(Taser AXON Flex) in law enforcement (Jennings et al, 2014). Of the 400 eligible patrol

officers within the department, 95 patrol officers voluntarily took part in the research project.

The research project was divided into two parts. The first involved officer openness toward

BWCs, their understanding of how it would affect them in the field, if it would have an effect on

their or their fellow officer’s use of force and the number of external (citizen-generated)

complaints, and the number of internal complaints received (Jennings et al, 2014). The second

portion consisted of analyzing the mean differences compared across the series of perceptual

domains by officer gender and officer race to determine if perceptions are significantly different

between male and female officers and/or White and Non-White officers. These coefficients were

then checked to see if there were significant correlations between officer age and officer years of

experience and officer perceptions (Jennings et al, 2014).

These results were obtained from a 15 item survey involving a 5-point Likert scale, in which 5

represented strong agreement and 1 a strong disagreement. The survey attempted to gather

general perception of body-worn cameras (BWCs) as well as the perceived effects of BWCs on

citizen behavior, personal behavior, and the behavior of their fellow officers. (Jennings et al,

2014). The results of the survey performed by Jennings, Fridell & Lynch are as follows: 62.7%

of officers agree/strongly agree that their agency should adopt BWCs for all of their officers.

77% of officers agree/strongly agree that they would feel comfortable wearing BWCs. 18.7% of

officers agreed or strongly agree that they would feel safer wearing BWCs. While 42.9%

Police Brutality 8

believed that BWCs would increase the “by the-book” behavior of other officers. A respective

30.8% & 27.5% of officers surveyed felt that the incorporation of BWCs would reduce the total

of external and internal complaints against the officers. However, only (3.3%) agree/strongly

agree with the statement that wearing BWCs would reduce their own use of force (Jennings et al,

2014).

It should also be noted that according to a recent review, there were three research studies

within the United States (none as of yet published as journal articles) have been completed

examining the effects of body-worn cameras on police-citizen interactions (White, 2014). Two of

the studies were: 1) a Cambridge University study examining the effects of BWCs on patrol

officers’ and their compliance rates in Rialto, California. 2) The Mesa (Arizona) Police

Department evaluation of BWCs. Both studies showed an overall decrease in both complaints

received and incidents requiring the use of force (Farrar & Ariel, 2013) & (Mesa Police

Department, 2013). Further-more as (White, 2013, 2014) notes research pertaining to officer

perception of BWCs in Pheonix, Arizona, some officers have negative attitudes about the

potential impact of BWCs prior to wearing them in the field. In conclusion this article serves as a

focal point for the determining a police agency’s incorporation of BWCs within their department.

The third and final article that I have chosen to analyze the topic of police brutality

through is: Examining Less Lethal Force Policy and the Force Continuum: Results From a

National Use-of-Force Study by William Terrill and Eugene A. Paoline, III. This article attempts

to addresses the issue of when the use of force is appropriate and to what level of force should be

used in accordance with that agency’s use-of-force continuum design. The direct questions posed

in (Terrill & Paoline, 2013) were as follows: 1) To what extent do agencies use a force

continuum?, 2) What type of force continuum designs do agencies most often use? And 3) How

Police Brutality 9

do agencies rank force tactics and citizen resistance on the continuum? In accordance with

Graham v. Connor (1989) force is justifiable so long as it adheres to objective reasonableness

given the circumstances of the case. In accordance with (Terrill & Paoline, 2013) there is no

uniform use-of-force policy between police departments. To date, comprehensive empirical

inquiries regarding this jurisdictional variation is unknown. At best, extant research has noted

that many agencies tend to instruct officers via a force continuum (Terrill & Paoline, 2013).

These various continuum designs serve as guidelines for how officers within a given agency are

supposed to appropriate the use of force.

Such continuum designs include: 1) linear 2) modified-linear design 3) matrix form

design and 4) wheel design. The practice of a linear continuum requires addressing the situation

at the lowest tier (officer presence). Should that level of force prove inadequate for handling the

situation, the next tier of force may be used, until the situation is resolved. A modified-linear

design basis the immediate level of force used to be based upon subject resistance. Should an

individual increase their resistance to the current level of force being used, the level of force

shall be raised and vice-versa should they decrease their level of resistance. In the matrix

approach, the level of force used by police is a variable of the form of resistance given by the

suspect. The wheel design is depicted in a circular fashion, with resistance and force options

shown in a series of concentric circles (e.g., an inner circle of suspect resistance types, followed

by an outer circle displaying varying forms of force in random order). This model, sometimes

referred to as a “situational” continuum structure, instructs officers not to assume stepwise or

linear progression (Terrill & Paoline, 2013). Of the 516 agencies that had completed Terrill &

Paoline’s questionnaire 240 agencies (46.5%) used a linear continuum, 139 agencies (26.9%)

used a modified-linear continuum, 52 agencies (10.1%) followed a matrix continuum, and

Police Brutality 10

another 48 agencies (9.3%) used a circular/wheel continuum design, while the remaining 37

agencies (7.2%) used other continuum structures. (Terrill & Paoline, 2013). They further

reported that 97% of police departments had some type of written policy regarding the use of and

escalation of force. Despite the vast majority of police departments having written policies

relating to the use of force, “Police agencies across the country differ with regard to the number

of definitions of force levels on the continuum.” (Fridell, 2005). Although some agencies may

follow the same use-of-force continuum, as mentioned by Fridell, they do not necessarily have

the same levels within the continuum. To illustrate this, we can use the example of department A

and department B. Both departments may have officer presence and verbal direction as their first

level of force, but for level two, they may differ. For instance department A might generalize the

next level to be physical soft empty hands (touching, grabbing), while B incorporates pain

compliance (holds, arm bars, etc) and striking/takedowns on top of the use of physical soft empty

hands. As noted in (Terrill & Paoline, 2013) there are some majority agreements within the

categorizing of types of force in response to suspect compliance. For over 86% of departments,

officer presence/verbal direction stand alone as the first level of force and 97.8% rank deadly

force by itself as the last form of force.

This article demonstrated that the majority of police departments incorporate a linear

design continuum. However, departments differ in the number of levels within their continuum

and the types of force used at each level. It can be concluded that there is no uniform continuum

structure as departments pick and choose, and tweak and adapt continuums to fit their

department, with little to no evidence as to which approach is the most effective.

In the analysis of all three articles, it can be found that each article relates to the issue of

police brutality. Using Graham v. Connor (1989) police brutality can be found in article 3 should

Police Brutality 11

the level of force used on a suspect be found unreasonable in accordance the suspect’s level of

resistance. Patterns of such practices can then result in the investigation of the police department

as a means of establishing the presence of excessive force. If found as was the case in article 1,

the DOJ or the agency conducting the formal investigation will require certain policies be

enacted in order to address problems within the department and ensure reformation is successful.

The investigating agency/agencies may mandate that the agency under investigation incorporate

body-worn cameras (BWCs) mentioned in article 2 as a means to ensure that proper policing is

being done.

Articles 1 and 3 also focused on the vagueness of procedures and other issues, which can

result in excessive usage of force by police. Both of which argued that agency structure,

practices and beliefs contributed to police brutality and hindered reformation efforts aimed at the

agency. In accordance with (Schatmeier, 2013) these obstacles were attributed to personnel who

either refused to comply or proved to be inept in their responsibilities. Whereas (Terrill &

Paoline, 2013) attributed these obstacles to general ambiguity in regards to proper force

correspondence and a lack of universal model to base force escalation on. By removing such

obstacles as portrayed through the reformation of the Cincinnati police department found in

article 1, complaints of excessive force/police brutality can be reduced as supported by

(Jennings, Fridell & Lynch, 2014), (Farrar & Ariel, 2013) & (Mesa Police Department, 2013)

found in article 2. Although article 2 did is a reaction to allegations of police brutality, it does

offer evidence, which could prove the actions of officers to be justified as the appropriate

response and then displayed to the public to clarify the events that occurred. By offering proof of

innocence or guilt, the public and justice system can react accordingly, therefore avoiding the

events which followed the beating of Rodney King Jr and the shooting of Michael Brown.

Police Brutality 12

As Kelly Stanlon mentioned in her presentation on police brutality, that police brutality is

the use of excessive force when reacting to a given situation. In accordance with Graham v.

Connor (1989) force is justifiable so long as it adheres to objective reasonableness given the

circumstances of the case. In short, force is only justified when it is needed. Stanlon elaborated

on the use of force via the use of force continuum, In accordance with (Terrill & Paoline, 2013)

the force continuum can be summed up as the appropriate level of force law enforcement

personnel are authorized to use against resisting subjects, given their situation. Stanlon then

noted that the force continuum is being rejected. As I noted earlier this rejection may be due to

the lack of a universal system in which police departments can base their policies for usage and

escalation of force on.

Although the force continuum is a logical theory, the majority of police agencies as noted

by Terrill & Paoline can only agree on the force options pertaining to the outer levels of the force

continuum. Which are the establishment of officer presence/ verbal direction as the first level

and the use of lethal force as the final level. Other force options such as physical soft empty

hands, pain compliance, physical hard empty hands and impact weapons are inconsistently

ranked and combined. As Stanlon mentioned, “officer presence is the best way” to handle

situations. Based on my research, I agree with her belief because the presence of a police officer

is the only level in which force is not required. It is not required because the suspect is already in

compliance with the officer, granting a peaceful solution to the incident. As suspects progress in

levels in resistance, more severe acts of force are exerted by law enforcement officers. Based on

this principle, the next level should be physical soft hands. This level consists of grabbing the

suspect and applying soft restraints. Level 3 would be pain compliance, which may involve the

use of handcuffs, pepper-spray and pressure point holds. At level 4 would be physical hard

Police Brutality 13

empty hands, which would consist of strikes and takedowns as mentioned earlier. The next level

would be the use of impact weapons such as the baton and Taser. The final resort to handling the

situation is lethal means. As Stanlon mentioned through her discussion of Tennesse v Gardner

(1985) any type of lethal force must be reasonable.

Another topic discussed during her presentation was the media’s effect on police. It is no

shock that the media portrays the police as evil, because it provides shock value and contributes

to higher sales. It should also be noted that, these stories represent less than 1% of citizen-police

interactions. As mentioned during Stanlon’s presentation, there were an estimated 53,050,790

citizen-police interactions in 2012. In accordance with the Bureau of Justice Statistics of these

interactions about 26,000 received complaints of excessive force, which represents 0.049% of

citizen-police interactions. Further-more only 2,080 of those complaints were sustained,

representing 0.0039% of interactions reported that year.

This is not to say that such incidents of police brutality do not exist. Confirmed incidents

like the beating of Rodney King Jr do occur every year. As we have witnessed in the past year,

national cases such as Michael Brown and Eric Garner can result in significant changes in

policing procedures. The shooting death of Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer, brought

the discussion of body-worn cameras to the immediate forefront of policing. As a result many

police departments throughout the country are now being pressured by the public to adopt body-

worn cameras (Jennings, Fridell & Lynch, 2014). The desire for which stems from the public’s

questioning of excessive force during citizen-police interactions. As studies have shown, the use

of body-worn cameras there is an overall decrease in both complaints received and incidents

requiring the use of force (Jennings, Fridell & Lynch, 2014), (Farrar & Ariel, 2013) & (Mesa

Police Brutality 14

Police Department, 2013). The incorporation of BWCs, offers both police departments and the

general public video evidence for establishing the presence of police brutality.

The cases of Mike Brown, Eric Garner, Rodney King Jr., Sean Bell and Charley Kuenang

are not the only cases in which significant attention was garnered by the media. Another case

that received national attention was that of Timothy Thomas. The ensuing riots that occurred

following Thomas’ death led to the formal investigation of the Cincinnati Police Department by

the Department of Justice. Although the department had lost the community’s trust immediately

following the investigation, the investigation did yield an affective reformation of the

department, which could be used in current police departments. During the reformation process,

the MOA required officers to be retrained and enforce the law in a manner consistent with the

new policy changes. As Stanlon illustrated in her presentation, law enforcement agencies nation-

wide are undergoing retraining in response to Garner. The purpose of which is to retrain police to

avoid the use of chokeholds like the one which caused the death of Eric Garner. As mentioned

during the presentation, most of these officers have not received training since they went through

the academy. The cause for the lack of continuous training that police officers are supposed to

receive was a lack of funding.

However, as Schatmeier points out, the mandates enforced under a DOJ’s MOA are not

successful in guaranteeing successful reformation. In regards to communities that have been the

sites of significant and/or notorious cases of excessive force, problem oriented policing should be

adopted, so that police departments can gain some of the community’s trust back by increasing

the frequency of positive interactions between police and the community and its leaders

(Schatmeier, 2013). Given the success of the CPD, police departments like Ferguson and the

Police Brutality 15

NYPD should incorporate such agreements with community organizations, as the retraining of

the officers nation-wide will not be enough to alleviate the tensions with police.

Police Brutality 16

References

42 U.S.C. § 14141 retrieved April 4, 2015

Blackwell, B., & Vaughn, M. S. (2003). Police civil liability for inappropriate response to

domestic assault victims. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 129–146.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).

Farrar,W., & Ariel, B. (2013). Self-awareness to being watched and socially desirable behavior:

A field experiment on the effect of body-worn cameras and police use of force.

Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

Fridell, L. A. (2005). Improving use-of-force policy, policy enforcement, and training. In J. A.

Ederheimer & L. A. Fridell (Eds.), Chief concerns: Exploring the challenges of police use

of force (pp. 21-56). Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Jennings, W., Fridell, L., & Lynch, M. (2014). Cops and cameras: Officer Perceptions of the Use

of Body-Worn Cameras in Law Enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(6), 549-

556. Retrieved March 31, 2015, from Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson).

Kowalski, B. R., & Lundman, R. J. (2007). Vehicle stops by police for driving while Black:

Common problems and some tentative solutions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 165–

181

McElvain, J. P., & Kposowa, A. J. (2004). Police officer characteristics and internal affairs

investigations for use of force allegations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 265–279.

Mesa Police Department (2013). On-officer body camera system: Program evaluation and

recommendations. Mesa, AZ: Mesa Police Department.

Phillips, S., & Varano, S. P. (2008). Police criminal charging decisions: An examination of post-

arrest decision-making. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 307–315

Police Brutality 17

Schatmeier, E. (2013). Reforming Police Use-of-Force Practices: A Case Study of the Cincinnati

Police Department. Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems, 46(4), 539-586.

Retrieved March 30, 2015, from OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson).

Stanlon, K. (Director) (2015, March 30). Police Brutality. class. Lecture conducted from ,

Oswego.

Terrill, W., & Paoline, E. A. (2012). Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs) and citizen injuries: The

shocking empirical reality. Justice Quarterly, 29, 153-182.

Terrill, W., & Paoline, E. (2013). Examining Less Lethal Force Policy and the Force Continuum:

Results From a National Use-of-Force Study. Police Quarterly, 16(1), 38-65. Retrieved

April 7, 2015, from Academic Search Alumni Edition.

Weir, H., Stewart, D. M., & Morris, R. (2012). Problematic alcohol consumption by police

officers and other protective service employees: A comparative analysis. Journal of

Criminal Justice, 40, 72–82.

White, M. D. (2013, September 5). Personal interview with Commander Michael Kurtenbach of

the Phoenix (Arizona) Police Department and Professor Charles Katz of Arizona State

University about the Phoenix body-worn camera project

White, M. D. (2014). Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing the Evidence.Washington,

: U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs Diagnostic Center.

Zhao, J., Lovrich, N. P., & Robinson, T. (2001). Community policing: Is it changing the basic

functions of policing?: Findings from a longitudinal study of 200+ municipal police

agencies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 365–377

Police Brutality Motiongraphic. (n.d.). Retrieved April 7, 2015, from

Police Brutality 18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRd5oucG114

Police Brutality 19

Public Justice Oral Presentation PBJ 401 Rubric [Critical Thinking]

Name: Kelly Stanlon Date: March 30, 2015

Quality/Criteria

No/Limited Proficiency

1

Some Proficiency

2

Proficiency3

High Proficiency

4

(Rating)

Students will identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own and other’s work.

1. Does not isolate the argument(s) from extraneous elements in the text.2. Does not identify the argument’s conclusion or distinguish it sufficiently from the premises and little or noeffort is made to identify relevant definitions or hidden assumptions.3. Does not address whether the argument’s premises provide sufficient logical support for the conclusion, independently of the truth of the conclusion.4. Does not consider whether the premises are reasonable to believe, independently of whether they support the conclusion or else no effort is made to evaluate the credibility of the premises’ sources.

1. Identifies the target argument(s) but includes extraneous elements such as expressions of opinion and descriptions of events.2. Distinguishes the argument’s conclusion from its premises, but little effort is made to identify relevant definitions and/or hidden assumptions.3. Attempts to assess whether the argument’s premises provide sufficient logical support for the conclusion, independently of whether the premises are true.4. Attempts to assess the reasonableness of the argument’s premises, but little effort is made to consider the credibility of the premises’ sources.

1. Identifies the target argument(s).2. Distinguishes the argument’s conclusion from its premises and some effort is made to identify relevant definitions and/or hidden assumptions.3. Correctly assesses whether the argument’s premises provide sufficient logical support for the conclusion, independently of whether the premises are true.4. Correctly assesses the reasonableness of the premises, including the credibility of their sources, independently of whether they support the conclusion.

1. Identifies the target argument(s) and clearly distinguishes it from any extraneous elements such as expression of opinion and descriptions of events.2. Carefully articulates the argument’s conclusion, clearly distinguishes it from its premises and identifies most relevant definitions and/or hidden assumptions.3. Clearly and correctly assesses whether the argument’s premises provide sufficient logical support for the conclusion, independently of whether the premises are true.4. Clearly and correctly assesses the reasonableness of the premises, including the credibility of their sources (e.g. observation, testimony, measurement, experiment, etc.), independently of whether the premises support the conclusion.

3

Police Brutality 20

Students will develop well-reasoned arguments.

1. Does not clearly state a conclusion or point of view or else little or no supporting reasoning or evidence is presented.2. Makes no attempt to recognize or respond to objections or alternative points of view.3. Makes not attempt to describe the broader relevance or significance or to apply the reasoning to a novel problem.

1. States a conclusion or point of view but does not organize the evidence or reasons in a logically adequate way.2. Does not clearly identify or respond to relevant objections or alternative points of view.3. Does not adequately describe the broader relevance or significance or apply the reasoning to a novel problem.

1. Presents an argument using evidence and/or logical reasoning in support of a point of view.2. Identifies some qualifications or objections or alternative points of view.3. Describes the broader relevance, significance of context and/or applies the reasoning to a novel problem.

1. Develops a clearly articulated argument, using evidence and/or systematic logical reasoning in support of a conclusion or point of view.2. Identifies relevant qualification or objections or alternative points of view and prioritizes evidence and/or reasons in support of the conclusion.3. Describes the broader relevance, significance or context of the issue and/or applies the reasoning to a novel problem.

Total Points:

4

Quality/Criteria

No/Limited Proficiency

1

Some Proficiency

2

Proficiency3

High Proficiency

4

(Rating)7