by Detrick Mott
Police officers operate in an environment where
hesitation can cost lives. The use of force is not an emotional decision, but
it is not a demographic decision. It is a legal decision governed by two simple
rules: was the officer’s action objectively reasonable, and was the level of
force proportional to the threat presented? Everything else is noise. When
officers respond to calls, make arrests, or intervene in violent encounters,
the law does not ask them to calculate age, popularity, or public opinion. The
law asks whether a reasonable officer in the same circumstances would have
acted the same way.
The first governing
rule is objective reasonableness. Under established legal standards, force must
be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not with the benefit of hindsight or through the lens of politics. Officers are often forced to
make split-second decisions in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving
situations. The question is not whether the outcome looks bad on video the next
day. The question is whether the officer reasonably perceived a threat at the
moment force was used.
The second
governing rule is proportionality. Force must match the threat. If a suspect
presents a deadly threat, deadly force may be justified. If the threat is
lower, the response must be scaled accordingly. Officers are not allowed to use
force as punishment or retaliation; it must be tied directly to gaining control
and stopping a threat. Proportionality ensures that force is measured, not
excessive, and directly connected to the danger at hand.
The discussion
often drifts toward the individual's age, size, or other personal characteristics. That is a distraction. A 16-year-old pointing a gun is a
deadly threat. A 70-year-old charging with a knife is a deadly threat. The
threat dictates the response, not the birth certificate. Officers do not get the
luxury of ignoring danger because of someone’s age. The law does not create
separate standards of survival based on demographics.
Rank-and-file
officers understand this clearly: the job is about survival, control, and
protecting the public. De-escalation is always preferred, when possible, but
officers are not required to retreat from violence or gamble their safety on
hope. When force is necessary, it must be lawful, reasonable, and proportional,
nothing more and nothing less.
At the end of the day, the use of force is binary. It is
either justified under the law, or it is not. The standard is reasonableness
and proportionality. When officers stay within those boundaries, they are doing
exactly what society has authorized them to do to protect life, enforce the
law, and go home safely at the end of the shift.
Comments