When Is Police Use of Force Justified? How Officers Think

By Andrew Bell and Bruce Razey  |  09/09/2024

When necessary, police use force to uphold the rule of law. Another reason is that the citizens they protect will not have to use force to protect themselves, other people, and property.

Police have a duty to arrest and lawfully detain a fleeing suspect and to defend themselves – and other people – from physical aggression. A necessary part of an arrest is the detention of a suspect. Detention occurs when an arrested individual is not free to leave the control of the officer.

However, the police should only use physical force when an unwilling perpetrator resists their control, and officers can legally only use the force necessary to make the arrest. While officers have a duty to arrest lawbreakers, they also have a right to defend themselves against injury or death.

It is crucial that the force used by police officers is objectively reasonable and in proportion to the threat posed by the suspect. If a person poses an immediate life threat to the officer or others, the use of deadly force may be justified.

Remember the recent scene reminiscent of the Old West of that  husband and wife brandishing weapons at protesters? Overall, citizens don’t want lawlessness and people taking matters into their own hands with excessive force.

All good citizens seek a fair government based on the rule of law. They prefer laws that are publicly supported, equally enforced by the police, judged by impartial courts, and aligned with international human rights principles.

The Rule of Law Is Not One-Sided 

Notice that the rule of law is not one-sided – it also demands the government be fair and equitable. With the killings of Black citizens such as George Floyd, many Americans have lost trust in the rule of law.

So how do we regain that trust? Would stopping the use of force by police bring us an equitable solution, as some people believe? No. Even the United Nations believes that the rule of law must allow for the use of force by the government.

Trust must be built over time. It starts with educating the public about why and how police react and respond to dangerous situations. Understanding how officer training works and why police have broad discretion in their use of force will go a long way in rebuilding trust between citizens and police.

Contrary to popular belief, many police departments never train nor approve choking as a compliance technique. Pain is what brings a disorderly subject under control, not the sleeper hold. Police officers are trained in a few simple takedowns and come-along techniques to quickly gain control over a person resisting arrest.

We do not recommend choke holds for two reasons:

1. They are not only dangerous, but they are also difficult to learn and perform during an altercation.
2. Severe injury or death can occur if the choke hold maneuver isn’t applied correctly or used for too long.

Quick Resolution Is Crucial in Police Encounters

When verbal commands and hands-on control techniques fail, officers are trained to use less lethal weapons, such as batons, pepper spray, stun guns, tasers, and similar equipment. In the past, these weapons were referred to as non-lethal. However, many police departments changed the term to “less-lethal” after there were several deaths.

Pepper spray, for example, can cause severe or even deadly medical complications to people with respiratory conditions. Similarly, heart patients – especially people with pacemakers – are also at risk if a stun gun or TASER® device is used against them. These weapons can even cause cardiac issues in healthy people.

As for a baton strike, there would be no danger of being struck if the aggressor does not provoke the responding officers. However, The Marshall Project and other experts have suggested that had these less-lethal tools been used, people like Michael Brown, Walter Scott, and Tamir Rice would not have died.

When police are forced to employ less-lethal weapons, they seldom – if ever – know the physical condition of the perpetrator actively resisting arrest and attempting to escape justice. Consequently, law enforcement officers need to be trained and prepared to render medical aid to the individual as soon as possible to prevent serious physical injury.

The Debate on the Use of Less-Lethal Weapons

Another popular idea calling for limiting police use of force is if police departments do away with less-lethal weapons, then that will reduce the use of excessive force by officers. In reality, the use of less-lethal weapons helps to minimize injuries to officers and offenders.

A study by The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) indicated when “less-lethal tools are integrated with an agency’s use-of-force policies, training, and tactics – the policing profession is likely to see positive movement in use-of-force statistics and improvements in police-community relations.”

Understanding the Risks When Criminals Resist Being Arrested

Suspects who evade arrest are focused on just one thing: getting away. Resisting often begins with pushing, punching, and kicking.

However, when those tactics fail, most criminals increase their resistance in any way they can to get away from police custody. They might even choose to choke the arresting officer.

Conversely, a reasonable officer is limited to a few painful holds to ensure a subject’s compliance and, if necessary, whatever tools are on the officer’s belt. Officers are trained to use only the minimum force necessary to make the arrest. Going beyond the least amount of force could be defined as excessive force, and the officer can be held accountable for taking additional actions.

Try to picture yourself as a police officer arresting someone for an illegal act. As you provide a verbal warning and attempt to handcuff the violator, he twists away, punches you, and runs off. You chase him down, and a wrestling match ensues.

During the scuffle, your pepper spray falls from your belt and the suspect retrieves it. For self-defense, you must now prevent the suspect from using the pepper spray.

If you don’t, the suspect will temporarily blind you and leave you gasping for breath. That will enable the suspect to either escape or take your gun and shoot you.

All you have are your Taser and sidearm to avoid incapacitation and the need for medical treatment. You have only a split second to decide which weapon to grab. What would you do?

Officers must often make these difficult, split-second judgments. However, if a suspect is seriously injured or killed by officers, then their decisions and tactics are scrutinized by the media, the police department, and everyone else who sees the video or hears about it on social media.

But lying on your back with a violent suspect looming over you, ready to use the pepper spray in his hand, is not the time to weigh the pros and cons of your actions. Almost anyone under these circumstances would defend themselves against injury or death using any means necessary, and police officers must be afforded the same opportunity for self-defense.

Department policies limiting an officer's action in high-risk or dangerous situations are not new. For instance, our department had a policy that banned firing our weapons on a moving vehicle. Pursuits are commonly limited in two respects:

• The number of police vehicles involved
• Disengaging or terminating the pursuit of a suspect when the risk to human life outweighs the seriousness of the offense

Sometimes, other methods exist to pursue and apprehend a suspect, such as an air unit. If an air unit is available, a vehicle pursuit may be terminated so that the air unit can follow and identify where the suspect vehicle stops.

Similarly, a supervisor must be made aware of the situation. That supervisor can also terminate a pursuit at any time.

Even a Reasonable Officer Must Be Constantly on Alert, Especially in Situations That Appear Non-Threatening

During police contact, at least one gun – the officer’s weapon – is involved 100% of the time. A situation can quickly turn from a fistfight to lethal force if the suspect poses an imminent threat and grabs the officer’s firearm or other less-lethal weapons. These circumstances occur more often than you would think.

For example, one of our officers responded to a misdemeanor shoplifting at a retail department store. The offender was cooperative and cordial.

Since the offender had no identification, the officer was required to make a physical arrest instead of issuing a summons. Due to the suspect’s friendly demeanor, the officer agreed not to handcuff him, which is almost always a mistake. The shoplifter overpowered the officer and shot him with his duty weapon.

In another incident, an officer walked into his bank to cash a check. He greeted a man leaving the building and held open the door for him.

The man turned around and yanked the officer’s baton from his belt. The officer was violently hit in the head, knocking him out and causing serious bodily injury. Unfortunately, the officer had no idea the man had just robbed the bank.

These types of incidents cause police officers to be on continuous high alert. But to attain and maintain that high level of alertness, their body language is often misconstrued by the public as arrogant and daunting.

Officers are taught to always be aware of and to retain their lethal and non-lethal weapons. Today, many people believe that police officers should be restricted from using specific means of force.

Even in a particular situation when a police officer faces an armed individual, some people still argue against the use of any deadly force or self-defense. They say, “The cop should have shot the guy in the leg. He didn’t need to kill him.”

The Challenges Police Officers Face in High-Stress Situations

The police are not target shooters. They train to strike body mass, not limbs, in deadly force or self-defense situations involving an immediate threat.

The purpose of using force is to stop the aggression quickly, not prolong the situation. The longer the aggression continues, the more dangerous it becomes for all involved parties. Police officers should never have to make the choice between living another day or going through the court system.

There are bad people in police departments, politics, activist groups, the media, and everyday life. The trick is to identify these individuals and weed them out so they cannot harm other people. The conduct of police is held to a higher degree than most professions, and that is the way it should be.

Even with all their training, police are not skilled enough or well-equipped to handle every situation they are called to answer. Some advocates say we ask too much of police officers, and citizens must decide what they want their police to do. In the case of drives to defund the police or limit police powers, there should also be a push to unburden police of non-emergency situations.

Redefining the Role of Police in Modern Society

Police are not social workers, doctors, or lawyers. Police in St. Petersburg, Florida, for example, will no longer respond to non-violent 911 calls, such as quality-of-life complaints or mental health concerns.

Regardless of this type of initiative, allowing for more concentrated training in the use of deadly force will do little to prevent mistakes by officers. There are also bad actors who deserve citizen and government scrutiny.

Why Police Must Prioritize De-Escalation

The dynamics of police situations can change at a moment’s notice. Using the reasonable force necessary to make an arrest also requires law enforcement personnel to reduce that force (de-escalating) when a suspect becomes cooperative.

Police must train to de-escalate any potential use-of-force situation. Defusing situations should always be the first option.

Second, police should train to de-escalate themselves as well as other police officers when it’s warranted. Most police-citizen encounters do not start as life-and-death situations but escalate over time. The art of de-escalation is about slowing down or reversing the escalating potential for violence.

A “tactical pause” or “timeout” is one way to break the tension. It could be as easy as changing the subject of discussion or even the tone of your voice, breaking from the norm that one might expect.

Another way is peer-on-peer or supervisor-on-peer interaction. An example in the Derrick Chauvin case would be if one of his fellow officers had intervened before Floyd’s death and said, “Hey Derrick, stop. Let’s pick up the suspect and get him back in the car.”

These techniques such as using timeouts, tactical pauses, peer-on-peer, supervisor-on-officer, or even backing down must be part of the use-of-force policy and training. 

It is time for people to understand why the police use force and to educate their families and friends on the subject. The police are expected to take charge of a situation, not shirk their duty when they’re faced with an aggressive individual who wants to harm someone.

It is always safer to complain to the police department’s internal affairs unit or the equivalent than to challenge an arresting officer. Communities must trust and respect those they call to help and protect them. Only by working together can mutual trust and respect be achieved between law enforcement agencies and the public.

Criminal Justice Degrees at American Military University

For students aiming to pursue career opportunities within the U.S. criminal justice system, American Military University (AMU) provides four specialized degrees:

• An online associate of arts degree in criminal justice
• An online bachelor of arts in criminal justice
• An online bachelor of science in criminal justice
• An online master of arts in criminal justice

These programs are intended for adult learners and feature an asynchronous format, so that students can more easily take courses while balancing their job and family responsibilities. Courses in these programs cover a broad range of topics, including legal issues, the impact of terrorism, criminal behavior, criminology, community relations, digital forensics, and investigative techniques. AMU's courses are delivered by experienced faculty who offer valuable perspectives on the U.S. criminal justice system.

For more information, please visit our program page.

NOTE: These degree programs are not designed to meet the educational requirements for professional licensure or certification in any country, state, province or other jurisdiction. This program has not been approved by any state professional licensing body and does not lead to any state-issued professional licensure.