1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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%
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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.
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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.
16. 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
17. 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
19. 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
Proficiency
3
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
no
effort 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 whetherthe
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/orhidden
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/orhidden
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
20. 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/orapplies the
reasoning to a novel
problem.
Total Points:
4
Quality/
Criteria
No/Limited
Proficiency
1
Some Proficiency
2
Proficiency
3
High Proficiency
4
(Rating)
7
