Deadly force represents the highest level on the Use of Force Continuum. It is a measure employed only in the most extreme circumstances and is defined as any force that can cause serious bodily harm or death. Let’s explore what this means.
When is Deadly Force Justified?
The application of deadly force by law enforcement officers is strictly regulated and is only considered justifiable when an officer believes it’s necessary to prevent death or serious injury to themselves or others, or to stop a fleeing suspect who poses a significant and immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to others (Tennessee v. Garner, 1985).
For example, if an individual is actively shooting at others, an officer may be justified in using deadly force to neutralize the immediate threat. The assessment must be based on the totality of the circumstances, considering factors such as the suspect’s actions, the danger to the community, and the availability of other options.
Types of Lethal Weapons
Officers may employ various types of lethal weapons, including firearms, certain knives, or other instruments capable of causing death or serious injury. The choice of weapon must align with the perceived threat, and officers must follow specific guidelines on when and how to deploy these tools.
- Firearms: Typically used when facing an immediate and grave threat. Officers are trained to aim at vital areas to neutralize the threat quickly.
- Other Lethal Instruments: In some rare instances, other tools or weapons may be considered lethal, depending on how they are used.
Training and Accountability
Proper training in the use of lethal weapons is paramount. Officers must be taught not only how to handle and deploy these tools but also the legal and ethical considerations surrounding their use. The decision to use deadly force is a grave one, and it must always be exercised with the utmost care and oversight.
Accountability measures must also be in place to review all instances of deadly force. Transparent investigations, clear policies, and ongoing monitoring ensure that officers adhere to the legal principles, departmental policies, and societal expectations governing the use of deadly force.
Liability for Improper Use of Weapons
When an officer uses a weapon in a manner that is contrary to established training protocols, serious legal liabilities can arise. This includes actions like attempting to “wing” someone (shooting to wound rather than neutralize) rather than aiming for the center of mass, as commonly trained. The following sections explore the legal consequences of such improper use.
Deviation from Training Protocols
Law enforcement officers are trained to follow specific protocols when using weapons. These guidelines are carefully crafted to balance the need to neutralize a threat with the duty to preserve life and minimize harm. A deviation from these protocols, even with good intentions, can lead to unintended consequences, increase risks, and create legal liabilities.
For example, aiming to “wing” someone might seem like a more humane approach, but it can lead to inaccurate shots, unnecessary suffering, or even endanger bystanders. Proper training emphasizes the need to neutralize a threat effectively and responsibly, often by aiming for the center of mass.
Adherence to protocols is especially crucial when law enforcement officers use tools like batons. Though generally classified as a non-lethal weapon, a baton can quickly become a deadly force if used improperly. Training protocols typically guide officers on how to use a baton to control or subdue an individual without causing serious injury. They must strike particular areas of the body that are less likely to result in fatal injuries and avoid sensitive areas such as the head, neck, or spine.
Failure to adhere to these specific protocols can lead to life-threatening injuries or death, raising the level of force to “deadly.” Such an escalation not only poses severe legal risks for the officer but also undermines public trust in the police’s ability to use force responsibly and proportionally. The proper training and consistent application of baton protocols are therefore vital to maintaining the delicate balance between effective law enforcement and the preservation of life and civil rights.
Legal Consequences
When an officer deviates from training protocols, it may lead to both criminal and civil liabilities. An improper use of force might be considered excessive, leading to criminal charges against the officer (Graham v. Connor, 1989). Additionally, the affected individual or their family may file a civil lawsuit, alleging violations of constitutional rights or personal injury.
Departmental Consequences
Apart from legal consequences, an officer’s deviation from established protocols might lead to departmental actions. This can include disciplinary measures, retraining, suspension, or even termination. Police departments are obligated to uphold the law and public trust, and failures in following protocols undermine this mission.
The Importance of Adherence to Protocols
Adherence to established training protocols is not just a matter of legal compliance; it reflects a commitment to professionalism, ethics, and community welfare. Misuse of weapons can erode public trust, compromise safety, and lead to severe legal consequences. Officers must continually engage with their training, understanding both the “how” and the “why” behind their actions, and act within the bounds of the law, departmental policies, and societal expectations.
Summary
Deadly force, the most severe level on the Use of Force Continuum, is a critical aspect of law enforcement that is utilized only in extreme circumstances. It can include the use of firearms or other lethal weapons and is considered justifiable only to prevent death or serious injury or to stop a dangerous suspect (as defined in cases like Tennessee v. Garner, 1985). Training and adherence to specific protocols are vital, and deviations from these can lead to criminal charges, civil liabilities, and departmental actions. For example, incorrect use of a baton can elevate the situation to a deadly force level. Accountability measures, transparent investigations, and ongoing training emphasize professionalism, ethics, and the balance between neutralizing threats and preserving life, reflecting the complex nature of law enforcement responsibilities.
References
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).
Jacobs, D., & O’brien, R. M. (1998). The determinants of deadly force: A structural analysis of police violence. American journal of sociology, 103(4), 837-862.
Modification History File Created: 08/08/2018 Last Modified: 08/01/2023
This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.
