Editing Deadly force

{{Short description|Use of force, likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person}}
{{Redirect|Lethal force|the racehorse|Lethal Force}}
{{Other uses|Deadly Force (disambiguation)}}

{{Multiple issues|
{{Globalize|article|USA|2name=the United States|date=March 2017|talk=Talk:Deadly force}}
{{Expert needed|1=Law Enforcement|date=June 2018|reason=Lacks information about the topic outside the United States}}
{{Rewrite|date=June 2018}}
}}
[[File:Use of Deadly Force Authorized (5730792058).jpg|thumb|right|Warning sign at [[Langley Air Force Base]]]]

'''Deadly force''', also known as '''lethal force''', is the [[use of force]] that is likely to cause [[Injury|serious bodily injury]] or [[death]] to another person. In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a [[wikt:last resort|last resort]], when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

[[Firearm]]s, [[bladed weapon]]s, [[explosive material|explosive]]s, and [[vehicle]]s are among those [[weapon]]s the use of which is considered deadly force. The use of [[Improvised weapon|non-traditional weapons]] in an offensive manner, such as a [[baseball bat]], sharp pencil, tire iron, or other, may also be considered deadly force.<ref name="robertankony" />

==United Kingdom==
The [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008]] allows householders to use reasonable force against intruders. <ref>{{cite web |title=Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime {{!}} The Crown Prosecution Service |url=https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime |website=www.cps.gov.uk |access-date=8 June 2023 |archive-date=16 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230716075815/https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime |url-status=dead }}</ref> In certain circumstances this can be lethal force.<ref>{{cite news |title=Does the law allow you to kill a burglar who has broken into your home? |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/kill-burglar-self-defence-what-law-allow-richard-osborn-brooks-reasonable-force-murder-householder-a8290441.html |access-date=8 June 2023 |work=The Independent |date=5 April 2018 |language=en}}</ref>

== United States law ==
[[File:Wayne County Sheriff Deputy with Reising submachine gun.JPG|right|thumb|Deputy Sheriff with [[Reising]] submachine gun.]]   
{{Main|Police use of deadly force in the United States}}
The [[United States Armed Forces]] defines 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.".<ref>DoDD 5210.56 ARMING AND THE USE OF FORCE</ref><ref name="robertankony">Robert C. Ankony, "Sociological and Criminological Theory: Brief of Theorists, Theories, and Terms," ''CFM Research'', July 2012, page 37.</ref>
In the [[United States]], 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 use of deadly force by law enforcement is also lawful when used to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon when the officer believes escape would pose a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to members of the public. Common law allowed officers to use any force necessary to effect a felony arrest, but this was narrowed in the ''[[Tennessee v. Garner]]'' ruling in 1985 when the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] said that "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."<ref name="robertankony" />

In the 1989 ''[[Graham v. Connor]]'' ruling, the Supreme Court expanded its definition to include the "objective reasonableness" standard—not subjective as to what the officer's intent might have been—and it must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene—and its calculus must embody the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.<ref name="robertankony" />

Most [[Law enforcement in the United States|law enforcement agencies]] establish a [[use of force continuum]], starting with simple presence through deadly force. With this model, officers attempt to control subjects and situations with the minimum force necessary. Agencies often have policies limiting the force used to be equal or one step higher on the continuum relative to the force they are opposing.

A [[civilian]]'s use of deadly force is generally [[justifiable homicide|justified]] if they reasonably believe that they or another person are in imminent danger of death or serious injury.<ref name="robertankony" /> Justification and affirmative defenses vary by state and may include certain property crimes, specific crimes against children, or the prevention of sexual assaults. 

[[U.S. law]] requires an investigation whenever a person causes another person's death, but the mechanism for such investigations can vary by state. The investigation develops evidence regarding the use of deadly physical force for a particular state or jurisdiction. An investigation may be performed by a local or state police agency and also a civilian agency, such as a county prosecutor or State Attorney General.<ref name="robertankony" /> A report of the findings of such an investigation may be submitted for prosecution and made public.<ref>{{cite web|title=Use of Deadly Force by Law Enforcement Officers|url=http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0074.htm|publisher=Chief Attorney|access-date=28 December 2013|date=February 1, 2008}}</ref>

The US police killing rate is 3.05 police killings per million of [[population]]. The US police killing rate of Blacks is 5.34 per million; of Hispanics is 2.63 per million; of Whites is 1.87 per million, and of others is 1.5 per million of population. The US police killing rate of Blacks is 2.86 times the US police killing rate of Whites.<ref name=LethalForce /> US police killing rates compare unfavorably with other jurisdictions.<ref name=LethalForce>Paull, John (2019). [http://www.academia.edu/43920154/The_Use_of_Lethal_Force_by_Police_in_the_USA_Mortality_Metrics_of_Race_and_Disintegration_2015_2019_   The Use of Lethal Force by Police in the USA: Mortality Metrics of Race and Disintegration (2015-2019)], Journal of Social and Development Sciences. 5 (4): 30-35</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Wertz  |first1=Joseph  |last2=Azrael  |first2=Deborah  |last3=Berrigan  |first3=John  |last4=Barber  |first4=Catherine |last5=Nelson |first5=Eliot |last6=Hemenway |first6=David |last7=Salhi |first7=Carmel |last8=Miller   |first8=Matthew |date=2020-06-01 |title=A Typology of Civilians Shot and Killed by US Police: a Latent Class Analysis of Firearm Legal Intervention Homicide in the 2014–2015 National Violent Death Reporting System|journal=Journal of Urban Health|language=en|volume=97|issue=3|pages=317–328|doi=10.1007/s11524-020-00430-0|issn=1468-2869|pmc=7305287|pmid=32212060}}</ref>

=== In relation to motor vehicles ===
In {{cite court
  |litigants=Scott v. Harris
  |vol=
  |reporter=
  |opinion=No. 05-1631
  |pinpoint=
  |court=
  |date=April 30, 2007
  |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1631.ZS.html
}}, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatened the lives of innocent bystanders did not violate the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]], even when it places the fleeing [[motorist]] at risk of serious bodily injury or death. In the ''Harris'' case, Officer Scott [[PIT maneuver|applied his police car's push bumper to the rear of the suspect's vehicle]], causing the [[suspect]] vehicle to lose control and crash, resulting in the fleeing suspect being paralyzed from the waist down.<ref name="robertankony" />

Traditionally, intentional contact between vehicles has been characterized as unlawful deadly force, though some U.S. federal appellate cases have mitigated this precedent. In
{{cite court
  |litigants=Adams v. St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department
  |vol=998
  |reporter=F.2d
  |opinion=923
  |court=11th Cir.
  |date=1992
  |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/19922525962f2d156312303
}},
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, although fatalities may result from intentional collisions between automobiles, such fatalities are infrequent and therefore unlawful deadly force should not be presumed to be the level of force applied in such incidents; the Adams case was subsequently called into question by
{{cite court
  |litigants=Harris v Coweta County
  |vol=406
  |reporter=F.3d
  |opinion=1307
  |court=11th Cir.
  |date=2005
  |url=https://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/ramming
}}, which in turn was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the ''Scott v. Harris'' case discussed above; the extent to which ''Adams'' can continue to be relied on is uncertain. In the ''Adams'' case, the officer rammed the suspect's vehicle.

In
{{cite court
  |litigants=Donovan v. City of Milwaukee
  |vol=17
  |reporter=F.3d
  |opinion=944
  |court=7th Cir.
  |date=1994
  |url=https://openjurist.org/17/f3d/944/donovan-v-city-of-milwaukee-c
}}, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recognized this principle but added that collisions between automobiles and motorcycles frequently lead to the death of the motorcyclist, and therefore a presumption that unlawful deadly force was used in such intentional collisions is more appropriate. In the ''Donovan'' case, the suspect lost control of his motorcycle and became airborne, crashing into the officer's vehicle, which was parked as part of an intercepting roadblock.

=== Situational threats === 
There are two main types of critical threats a suspect may pose: 1) escape and 2) physical harm. The latter threat involves a threat of violence, bodily harm, and/or death. If the suspect threatens to harm civilians and/or officers, then those officers must act to protect themselves and the public. In such a scenario, the perception of the officer(s) is critical. If there is a realistically perceived threat (i.e., the suspect is putting lives in danger), then officers may take the life of the suspect in order to protect themselves and the public. However, these situations can become complicated if the threat is not perceived as 'genuine', or if the suspect is in a location in which the use of deadly force to subdue the suspect may place other innocent bystander lives in danger. <ref> Alpert, Geoffrey P., Smith, William C., (1994) How Reasonable is the Reasonable Man. ''Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology''. 85(2), 481-501. </ref>

==See also==
{{Div col|colwidth=30em}}
*[[Fleeing felon rule]]
*[[Non-lethal weapon]]
*[[Peelian principles]]
*''[[Plummer v. State]]''
*''[[Tennessee v. Garner]]''
*''[[Graham v. Connor]]''
*[[Proactive policing]]
*[[Rules of engagement]]
*[[Self-defense]]
*[[Stand-your-ground law]]
{{div col end}}

==References==
<references />

{{DEFAULTSORT:Deadly Force}}
[[Category:Law enforcement agency powers]]
[[Category:Violence]]
[[Category:Self-defense]]
[[Category:Law enforcement terminology]]
[[Category:Law enforcement use of force]]