Deadly force is bodily force exerted reasonably on another person in a particular situation and is expected without doubt to bring about death or serious physical injury. Deadly force is generally justifiable if it is used for self-defense, defense of a third person, crime prevention or law enforcement (USLegal. com, 2008). In order for an act of deadly force to be constitutional, the following legal elements must be present in its commission:1. one must reasonably believe, 2.
it is necessary, 3. to defend oneself or another person, 4. against the use of physical force that is 5. imminent, 6.
unlawful and 7. deadly (Haemer, 2003).Responding with deadly force when confronted with deadly force that is immediate, can not be avoided and will surely cause you or another severe injury or death is generally justified. Belief should be reasonable subjectively and objectively, that is, a person should personally believe that deadly force is necessary in the situation and then contemplate if an average person would act similarly if put in the same situation (Haemer, 2003).
There are states that only accept objective reasonableness of belief, some accept subjective reasonableness to be sufficient (e. g. Ohio) while others require both. Laws Pertaining to Deadly Force Laws vary among states in the degree that deadly force is permitted, in what circumstances and by whom, i.
e. private citizens or police officers. Indiana, along with 22 other states in the South and Midwest, allows property owners to use deadly force against criminal trespass since related laws were strengthened in 2005 (Jarosz, 2008).In the same state, deadly force in self defense is lawful even without fulfilling the duty to retreat. In New York, deadly force is legal if employed to prevent arson and burglary (Haemer, 2003). Further, the state prohibits employment of deadly force in situations where a person, after assessing the situation, knows that he can retreat and the act does not compromise his own safety or that of others except if the incident occurs within the home.
In contrast, no similar laws have been passed or enforced in Arizona and Illinois (Haemer, 2003).Use of Deadly Force by Officers in Apprehension of Suspects With regards to the apprehension of criminal suspects by law enforcement officers through the use of deadly force, federal law requires that there should be “probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm…to the officer or to others…” and if deadly force “is necessary” to effect the apprehension (Hall, 2008). From this formulation, two factors can be extracted that have a direct bearing on the legality of deadly force: how dangerous the suspect is and how necessary deadly force is.According to the Supreme Court, a suspect may be concluded to be dangerousness if he is armed with a weapon and threatens the officer with it or there is probable cause to suppose that he has committed a crime which involves inflicting or the threat to inflict serious physical injury (Hall, 2008). This has provided an ample guide to the consideration of the first factor.
The second factor, necessity of deadly force, poses a significant legal challenge specifically in light of the availability of less invasive methods of apprehension and if the necessity arose due to the officers previous actions (Hall, 2008).These imply that the law requires officers to take into account other alternatives prior to employing deadly force as well as foresee and deter a suspect’s actions that may create the necessity for deadly force. It can be concluded that in determining necessity, the burden falls upon the officer’s judgment over and above the behavior of a suspect. In the landmark case of Graham vs.
Connor in 1989, the Supreme Court adopted the standard of “objective reasonableness at the moment” derived from the fourth amendment in deciding the constitutionality of an officer’s use of deadly force in apprehending and arresting suspects (Hall, 2008).The standard has not been defined specifically in recognition of the fact that this is not possible nor is its perfunctory application encouraged. Further, the Supreme Court elaborated that the scope of examination should only involve the “facts and circumstances confronting the officers judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather then with the 20/20 vision of hindsight” (Elliot, 2008).In short, the Supreme Court of the United States established that the reasonableness clause contained in the 4th Amendment does not impose on law enforcers the duty to determine and choose the most unintrusive alternative but rather to do what is reasonable.
This means that an officer’s use of force is evaluated based on the point of view of a reasonable officer in the same situation. In accordance with this principle, majority of courts have denied merits to arguments along the line that officers did not opt for the least intrusive alternative or that they themselves caused the necessity (Hall, 2008).For example, opinions that the confrontation occurred because the officers failed to show their badges or did not exert effort to persuade the suspect to surrender are rejected. The case Bradford vs.
City of Los Angeles illustrates the reality that officers may be subjected to criminal liability from not employing non-deadly options that were readily available to them in lieu of deadly force. The plaintiff had just collected ransom money and was about to drive off when he was apprehended. He then proceeded to flee on foot.An officer at the scene chased and hit him with his patrol car resulting in serious physical injuries in the latter (Hall, 2008).
The jury and appellate court found the officer’s use of deadly force in stopping an escaping suspect as unreasonable with the principal argument that he had other less deadly alternatives. For instance, there were other officers at the scene and they could have devised a plan of cutting the suspect’s escape or the officer could have used the car to block the suspect’s path instead of hitting him.However, this decision is unconventional as compared to the rulings of other courts confronted with similar cases. In Plakas vs. Drinski, the officer was verbally threatened and then assailed by a handcuffed suspect with a fireplace poker.
He responded by shooting and killing the suspect. The plaintiff’s argument was that the officer could have maintained his distance, used physical barriers, sprayed the suspect with CS gas or employed a police dog remove the weapon instead of using his gun (Hall, 2008).The court ruled summary judgment for the police in adherence to the 4th Amendment standard with the reasoning that there was too little time for an officer to make decisions at that “precise moment” that he is confronted with danger regarding which among the alternatives to use (Hall, 2008). Further, it necessitates that the officer has to contemplate on the future consequences of using each alternative first before choosing a particular action. The court’s ruling in Scott vs.Heinrich clearly reiterates this position when it declared that selecting the least intrusive option required superhuman judgment on the part of an officer and enforcing this requirement will essentially result in hesitancy on their part.
It undermines their reliance on their training and common sense for the fulfillment of tasks, limits them to a single course of action and prevents them from carrying out their sworn duty to protect the public (Hall, 2008).However, this principle upheld by the judiciary, which reduces the probability that officers would be held liable for the use of deadly force, should not be regarded as convenient excuse for them to use excessive or unreasonable force. Rather, it should provide an impetus for law enforcement agencies to establish policies and procedures with regards to the reasonable use of force in safeguarding the community and their ranks.
