Dilemmas are frequent occurrences in our daily lives. We cannot control when they happen or whom they involve; however, we can decide how we approach them and actions we take to resolve them. The choice made is left to one’s own discretion: Pollock’s definition of discretion,” The authority to make a decision between two or more choices” (Pollock, 2012, p. 2). Pressure regarding discretion, when referring to police officers, becomes greater because of the high expectations to which officers are held. Fairness, sympathy, apathy, and justice are all things we anticipate all officers to posses and practice during conflict resolution. The level of power that police officers carry when deciding how to handle a situation, also plays a role in why they are under an immense amount of public scrutiny. Civilians make choices that will greatly affect themselves and their families. In juxtaposition officers make choices that will greatly affect other individuals and communities, sometimes an entire country. They are given the authority to enforce laws, when to enforce said laws, diffuse disputes, use force and decide how much of it is to be used, etc.(Pollock, 2012). Essentially, they also have the inferred right to eliminate or cease lives; whether it is detaining, injuring, or executing an alleged criminal. Therefore, a police officer’s discretion has more of an impact than the average civilians. Authority given in this large quantity can easily obstruct an officers judgment. This is a disadvantage in police discretion due to corruption, abuse of power, and the bias decisions to a domestic violence call; upon arriving he observes an inebriated older gentlemen, an abused mother, and frightened children. Although the mother presses no charges, the officers lunges at the man with excessive force. The drunk man, whom is compliant, falls and injures himself on the hard surface. The officer, however, argues that the man was combative and ar