Written by Dillon LaRue Rountree, Staff Writer

It seems that nearly every aspect of policing is being scrutinized, from the equipment police are using to the laws that they enforce, nothing is taken for granted. The most contentious issue however, is the use of deadly force—when, why, and how police take the ultimate measure of force. To answer this, we must look at the laws and regulations regarding force and their application in the field. Keep in mind that this piece is not to fully explain the use of force, but to give a small insight into the reality of deadly force in America.

An example of an average use-of-force policy is that of Georgia municipal police department (who will be unnamed here, by request), the department has had the same policy since 2007. The policy differentiates authorized force into five categories based upon level of resistance such as assaultive resistance which authorizes an officer to use impact weapons or pepper spray on a suspect. These local policies fall in line with and expand upon Georgia state law which states that law enforcement officers are authorized to use deadly force only when a suspect is capable and likely to cause serious harm or death to an officer or another individual.

A citizen cannot only look to law and policy. How deadly force is carried out in the streets is equally as important, if not more important, than what is written in the books. According to the Washington Post’s ongoing investigation into police shootings nationwide, 680 people have been killed by police this year; all except 65 were armed with a deadly weapon or a look-alike weapon.

Americans are concerned with the 65 unarmed individuals, and why officers used deadly force when non-lethal means are usually available. Any officer will tell you, there is no such thing as a routine encounter, much less a routine use-of-force incident. However, if one examines the incidents individually, they tend to exhibit a common pattern.

In most deadly force scenarios involving unarmed individuals they can be sorted into one of three broad categories; they were engaged in a fist fight with officers, it was an accident, or it is what is known as a “bad shoot”, an instance when deadly force was not justified. In regards to instances involving suspects fighting with officers, they typically involve attempts made to steal an officer’s weapon or the suspect gaining an upper hand in a way that makes serious harm likely for the officer. In these cases, pepper spray and Tasers would not be viable due to proximity. This leaves the officer’s sidearm as the only real option.

In regards to accidents, these are cases when officers missed the intended target and hit a bystander by mistake. They are fairly rare, but do occur, especially in situations in crowded areas. The final category is the “bad shoot”, an instance where deadly force was illegal and unjustified. A textbook example of this is the Walter Scott shooting, in which Scott was shot in the back as he fled the officer despite no evidence of being armed or a danger to others. These are by far the rarest type of police involved shooting.

The use of deadly force by officers is almost always justified. In the vast majority of cases the suspect is armed and a direct threat to the officer or other people. Even in cases where a suspect is unarmed, the majority are justified due to a very real threat to an officer being present. This does not mean that we as a society should lower our vigilance when investigating questionable use of force incidents, but at the same time, we must not forget the reality of officers’ life or death decisions that are made every day.