Life-Threatening Danger: Police Lethal Force Law

The use of deadly force by police officers is a highly contentious issue. In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is only justified under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all other means have been exhausted or are not feasible. In the United States, police officers are permitted to use deadly force when they reasonably believe a suspect poses a significant threat of serious bodily harm or death to themselves or others. This belief must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, taking into account the fact that officers often have to make split-second decisions. The concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law serves as a defense for culpable homicide, where there is sufficient evidence to disprove criminal wrongdoing or intent. The key to this legal defense is the reasonable belief of an imminent and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm.

Police use of deadly force in the US

In the United States, the use of deadly force by police officers is a contentious issue that has drawn widespread attention and scrutiny. Deadly force refers to the use of force likely to cause serious bodily injury or death. While it is deemed justifiable under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, the deployment of deadly force by law enforcement has significant legal, ethical, and societal implications.

The legal framework governing the use of deadly force by police officers in the US is complex and subject to interpretation. The US Armed Forces define deadly force as "force that is likely to cause, or that a person knows or should know, would create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm or injury." The Tennessee v. Garner ruling in 1985 narrowed the circumstances under which police officers could use deadly force, stating that it "may not be used unless necessary to prevent escape, and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm."

The Graham v. Connor ruling in 1989 further refined the definition by introducing the "objective reasonableness" standard, mandating that the use of force be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, taking into account the split-second decision-making inherent in policing. Most law enforcement agencies operate within a use-of-force continuum, aiming to control situations with the minimum force necessary.

The use of deadly force by police officers in the US has come under intense scrutiny due to a history of racially discriminatory treatment and an alarming use of lethal force, particularly against African Americans. The shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and numerous other cases have highlighted this disturbing pattern. Amnesty International reviewed US state laws governing the use of lethal force and found that all 50 states and Washington, DC, fail to comply with international law and standards.

The lack of compliance with international standards raises serious human rights concerns, including the right to life, security of the person, freedom from discrimination, and equal protection under the law. The United Nations (UN) Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms stipulate that law enforcement officials should not use firearms against individuals except in self-defence or the defence of others against an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Additionally, international law enforcement standards emphasize that force may only be used when there are no other means available to achieve the legitimate objective and that it must be used in a manner that minimises damage and injury while preserving human life.

The US police killing rate underscores the disproportionate impact on different racial groups. According to statistics, the US police killing rate for Blacks is 5.34 per million, for Hispanics is 2.63 per million, for Whites is 1.87 per million, and for others is 1.5 per million. The rate for Blacks is 2.86 times higher than that for Whites, indicating a clear racial disparity.

In conclusion, the use of deadly force by police officers in the US is a complex and contentious issue with significant legal and ethical implications. While the legal framework provides guidelines for its use, the reality on the ground often falls short of international standards and results in tragic outcomes, particularly for minority communities. Addressing this issue requires a comprehensive review and reform of existing laws, policies, training, and practices related to police use of force, with a focus on upholding human rights and ensuring accountability and transparency in law enforcement practices.

US police killing rates

In the United States, the use of deadly force by law enforcement is a highly contentious issue. According to US law, a police officer can use deadly force when they reasonably believe that a person poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others. This includes situations where a fleeing felon's escape would pose a significant threat of serious harm or death to the public.

The US police killing rate is 3.05 per million of the population. When broken down by race, the rate for Black Americans is 5.34 per million, for Hispanics is 2.63 per million, for Whites is 1.87 per million, and for other ethnicities is 1.5 per million. This means that Black Americans are 2.86 times more likely to be killed by police than White Americans.

The rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was 6.2 per million of the population per year between 2015 and October 2024, and a total of 207 Black civilians were shot and killed by police as of October 22, 2024. In 2022, there were 1,096 people killed by police shootings according to The Washington Post, while the "Mapping Police Violence" (MPV) project documented 1,176 people killed by police that year and 1,213 in 2023.

Research has found that Black, Hispanic, and Native American/Alaskan individuals are disproportionately killed in police shootings compared to White or Asian individuals. A 2019 study estimated that police killings are a leading cause of death for men aged 25-29, with a rate of 1.8 per 100,000, surpassed only by accidental deaths, suicides, and other homicides.

The issue of police brutality has gained increased attention in recent years, particularly since the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. The Black Lives Matter Movement has been a vocal part of the movement against police brutality, bringing attention to the number and frequency of police shootings of civilians.

The US Supreme Court's stance on police shootings

The use of deadly force by US law enforcement is a contentious issue that has been the subject of several US Supreme Court rulings. In the US, the use of deadly force by sworn law enforcement officers is lawful when the officer reasonably believes the subject poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the use of deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape, and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others". This was established in the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner ruling, which narrowed the scope of what was previously allowed under common law, where officers could use any force necessary to effect a felony arrest.

The Supreme Court further defined the use of deadly force in the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling, which established the "objective reasonableness" standard. This means that the use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, taking into account the fact that officers often have to make split-second decisions.

The Supreme Court has also addressed specific situations where the use of deadly force by police may be justified, such as in Scott v. Harris, where the Court held that an officer's attempt to end a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatened the lives of innocent bystanders did not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it placed the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.

Despite these rulings, the Supreme Court has faced criticism for its handling of cases involving police shootings and civil rights violations. In one notable case in 2021, the Court declined to take up an appeal filed by the mother of a 23-year-old man, Luke Stewart, who was fatally shot by an officer in Ohio. The lower court had ruled that while the officer may have unlawfully used excessive force, he was protected by qualified immunity, a legal defence that shields officers from civil litigation unless an individual's "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights have been violated. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the appeal was met with scrutiny, particularly in light of the protests against police brutality and racism that had taken place across the US in the previous year.

The reasonable force debate

The use of deadly force by police officers is a highly debated topic, with the question of what constitutes reasonable force often arising in cases of police shootings. While police officers are permitted to use deadly force in certain situations, the line between excessive and reasonable force is often blurred, leading to controversial outcomes in court cases.

In the United States, the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers is considered lawful when the officer reasonably believes that a suspect poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others. This belief must be probable cause, as established in the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner ruling, which narrowed the conditions under which deadly force could be used compared to what was previously allowed under common law.

The Tennessee v. Garner ruling stated that "the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable." This set a precedent that the use of deadly force must be a last resort, when all other means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

However, the definition of "reasonable" in this context has been further elaborated on in subsequent Supreme Court decisions, such as the Graham v. Connor ruling in 1989. This ruling introduced the ""objective reasonableness" standard, which states that the use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, taking into account the fact that officers often have to make split-second decisions.

The Graham v. Connor ruling also outlined several factors to be considered when determining if the use of force was reasonable, including the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest.

Despite these guidelines, the reasonable force debate continues to be a complex and controversial issue, as each case brings its own unique set of facts and circumstances for law enforcement officials, judges, and juries to consider. The perception of the officer plays a critical role, as they must be able to demonstrate a realistically perceived threat to justify the use of deadly force.

Additionally, the use of deadly force by police officers has come under increased scrutiny due to racial disparities in police killing rates, with the US police killing rate of Blacks being 2.86 times higher than that of Whites. This has led to growing concerns about fairness and innocence, as well as discussions about racial bias and systemic arbitrariness in the criminal justice system.

As a result, the reasonable force debate remains an ongoing discussion, with varying outcomes in highly publicized cases involving police shootings. While the Supreme Court has provided a consistent standard for deciding the legality of police shootings, the application of this standard continues to be a challenge in practice.

The legal consequences of making a threat

In the United States, the use of deadly force by sworn law enforcement officers is lawful when an officer reasonably believes that a suspect poses a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others. This is also the case when the use of deadly force is to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon, and the officer believes the escape would pose a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to members of the public.

The law has recognised limitations on free speech, and certain types of speech can constitute a crime. Criminal threats are one such example, and they occur when someone threatens to kill or physically harm someone else. To be convicted of a criminal threat, the prosecution must prove that:

• The defendant communicated a threat of harm to another person.
• The defendant intended for the communication to be taken as a threat.
• The threat was credible and specific enough to place a person in fear of harm.

Criminal threats are made with the intent of placing someone in fear of injury or death, and it does not matter if the defendant intends to carry out the threat. In some states, criminal threats are referred to as terroristic threats, threats of violence, malicious harassment, menacing, or other terms.

The consequences for making a criminal threat vary depending on the state and federal laws. In California, for example, criminal threats are considered a "wobbler offence", with a person facing up to a year in jail or time in prison. In Colorado, threatening someone without a weapon is a Class 1 misdemeanour, while implying or having a weapon increases it to a Class 5 felony. In Ohio, threatening physical harm is a fourth-degree misdemeanour, while threatening serious physical harm is a first-degree misdemeanour.

In addition to fines and jail time, being convicted of a felony can have severe lifelong consequences. Felons typically cannot buy or carry guns and are restricted from holding specific jobs, such as teaching or working as an attorney or police officer.

The legal consequences for making a threat are more severe if a weapon was involved or if the threat was followed up with unwanted contact, such as verbal assault. Both factors can result in being charged with a felony rather than a misdemeanour.

Frequently asked questions