Running Head: NORMALIZING DEADLY FORCE 1

Use of Force in Policing: The Factors and Impacts Leading to Normalizing Deadly Force
Justice Wickham
Mercyhurst University
 NORMALIZING DEADLY FORCE 2

In the world of modern law enforcement, there comes a time when the call to action may

demand a singular officer, or group of officers, to make the call. From discretion regarding the

lowest tier of punishable offense, escalating all the way to the widely scrutinized use of deadly

force. Deadly force, perhaps the most extreme action an officer can choose to employ, is as

controversial as it is situationally necessary in a broad range of circumstances, as permitted by

the laws that they abide by. The restriction of force itself, however, is incredibly hard to define

outside of a force-by-force basis. The National Institute of Justice (2019) says, “There is no

single, universally agreed-upon definition of use of force” (National Institute of Justice, 2019).

To apply legal and moral restrictions on a ‘heat of the moment’ reaction is both incredibly

difficult as well as illogical, resulting in use-of-force policies that can range from overly specific

to far too broad for conventional use (NIOJ, 2019). J.A Alonso tells us that, “Use-of-force cases

analyzed by the Supreme Court have created vague standards in this area of the law that allow

police departments to continue following old, vague, and inconsistent policies” (Alonso, J.A.

2018. pg. 998).

The confusion that rests in these policies ascends the entire tree of the conventional

police use-of-force-continuum, all the way up to the topical deadly force application reviewed in

further research. Understanding the contradictory and misguided legislation that gives these use-

of-force policies ground to stand on leads us to better understanding the circumstances that rest

behind application of deadly force procedures in day to day law enforcement interactions as well

as give framework to a number of the psychological factors that might lead to their use. Even

socially oriented factors, such as race of a suspect in regard to application of said force in a

situation, has been cited as a legitimate factor in need of repair if the policies of police force can
 NORMALIZING DEADLY FORCE 3

ever be rectified. In order to begin, however, just what constitutes deadly force must first be

understood.

Deadly Force

Deadly force, also commonly labelled as ‘lethal force’, is coined in reference to situations

in which a law enforcement official is faced with the need to employ lethal equipment in order to

stop a suspect that may pose an immediate danger to themselves, the officer, or nearby innocents

(NIOJ, 2019). An example of such an extreme call to action moment can include violent reckless

endangerment, such as in vehicular-based extremist attacks. Further examples include active

shooter cases, violent domestic assault crimes, attempted suicides that could further harm

surrounding civilians, and several other situations. However, just what conditions in these

situations authorize use of lethal force procedures is strictly laid out by legislation within the U.S

Supreme Court as well as the U.S Constitution, almost directly contradicting the force-by-force

illogical policies regarding use of force. Police are exclusively restricted to lethal force

applications only in life-or-death scenarios, but are left open to interpret just what constitutes life-

or-death in terms of later implications, something creating complications in what could be a ‘heat

of the moment’, must-act situation in the present (Baker, 2014).

Baker states, however, “Lethal force is the most scrutinized, severe action that can be taken

by a police officer” (Baker, Debbie. 2014). This is for good reason, of course, taking the life of

another individual is an action worthy of scrutinization and investigation no matter the factors of

the situation involved. However, these varying interpretations of what defines ‘authorization’ to

employ lethal force leads us to question just how valid an investigation into these events can be

given that exactly what laws can apply to them are varied in of themselves. As such, deadly force

incidents are extremely easy to mislabel as ‘excessive force’ incidents when documented by local
 NORMALIZING DEADLY FORCE 4

or state law enforcement agencies and, as such, go largely ignored in public eyes as no national

database exists for such incidents (NIOJ, 2019). Just why this is such an issue is more easily

understood when looking deeper into law enforcement training and the mental state reinforced by

such.

The Cop versus Clock Issue

As mentioned previously, the conundrums created by centering the act of taking a life in a

high-tension situation around loosely interpreted laws are only worsened when considering the

situations recruits into the average law enforcement agency are faced with. Typically, in a live or

die scenario, it’s a baseline expectation that the average officer only has half of a second to choose

what response to apply to what is unfolding before them (Baker, 2014). This half-second policy is

almost the core value of the typical conflict-elimination training, creating an intense ‘cop versus

clock’ mindset in which a law enforcement officer may evaluate every situation they approach by

how fast they could eliminate potential hostile suspects, even in situations not calling for any

application of force, especially deadly force.

The conflict of limiting policy from the Supreme Court blending with the unsure policies

of agencies, and this factor, may have contributed to a split-second “shoot first” concept that

essentially justifies excessive force through the loopholes of legal interpretation (Alonso, J.A.

2018. Pg. 997). Certain departments, of course, have recognized such an issue and are taking steps

toward rectifying the loophole in order to increase the degree of officer accountability and reign

in legislation regarding application of all force, notably lethal. Alonso (2018), makes a note that

“departments like the LAPD” are attempting to reorient training programs to focus on conflict de-

escalation over reactivity of officers to hostile situations (pg. 999). These issues, of course, leave
 NORMALIZING DEADLY FORCE 5

us with the implication of deeper, more intense mental factors that may point to inherent issues

with police lethal force application.

The Psychology

The act of taking of a life is as traumatic as it is legally complicated. It takes a toll on the

mind, and just as important in comprehending the outcome, is the build-up. Knowing just what

leads the average law enforcement officer to mentally accept the use of lethal force in a given

situation is critical, This requires a more complicated look into some previously touched-on

subpoints, specifically regarding a combination of societal expectations, legislation, and personal

training experience may complicate the thought process in a situation demanding applications of

severe degrees of force.

Psychological Factors

As it stands, we can come to the collective observation that most laws are made in direct

response to societal demand for protection or concerns over a specific act. The same applies to

laws restraining law enforcement activity, and as such, application of force is not excluded. As

such, codified laws concerning the applications of force imply society’s natural fear of dangerous

criminals escaping into civilized surroundings. This is enough to get into one’s head, the weight

of stopping potentially hostile felons from fleeing into innocent territory is a paramount concern

in the minds of law enforcement officers, as they’re trained to respond in such a way. This is

where the psychological interpretation becomes flawed.

The specific laws regarding defense of life and forcible felony laws are “very broad” and

lead to numerous shootings thanks to misinterpreted legislation within a police department’s

jurisdictions (Broomé, 2011, pg. 140). Broomé (2011) also notes that the “Model Penal Code’s
 NORMALIZING DEADLY FORCE 6

language” leaves an extreme breadth of interpretation for the subjective perspective of an officer

in the formulation of lethal scenarios (pg. 140). This subjectivity creates an extremely distressing

dilemma that serves as a double-edged sword. A shooting that may come out as a completely

justified self-defense killing may still terrify the innocent populace due to unclear laws, making

it seem as if the officer were self-interpreting his power in the situation and is receiving no

punishment for it. Poetically, this can be interpreted as “shepherds embodying the wolves they

fight whilst guarding sheep” (pg. 141), resulting in officers gaining unfair reputations for killings

that were legally justified under the legislation left open to their interpretation.

Compound these issues with the police training methodology, and an image forms of the

lasting damage that can come from putting officers in almost exclusively high-stress training

scenarios emphasizing perfection of use-of-force, notably lethal, means in order to reduce

threats. It begins ‘normalizing’ an unhealthy mental response that Broomé (2011) summarizes as

‘fight, flight, posture, or freeze’ (pg. 141). They begin seeing approaches to even baseline

scenarios as high-tension and may normalize excessive displays of force, and with the expansive

interpretation of department legislature restricting such displays, may escape certain degrees of

harsh punishment. In tandem with the pressure of the immediate society interpreting an officer

killing in a justified situation as ‘failure’, and we have begun packaging and releasing kill-

response officers with failure complexes into the world. This, by extension, has the potential of

endangering innocent civilians caught in immediate vicinity of what would be the relaxed view

of a lethal-response scenario brought on by training scenarios normalizing the behavior in their

perspective. Even simple traffic stops can begin to be looked at through the lens of “eliminating

potential threats” over emphasizing focus on assessing the situation first and escalating to use of
 NORMALIZING DEADLY FORCE 7

force only as necessary. However, these threats extend beyond merely civilians. These responses

have endangered the lives of other officers, as well.

Police-On-Police

Police-on-police shootings are complicated events, surrounding the fatal shooting of an

off-duty police officer by an on-duty police officer regardless of immediate circumstances. They

are extremely rare, but the numbers shed some amount of light, and reveal several different

factors. Charbonneau, Spencer, & Glaser (2017) indicate that only ten officers, between 1989

and 2009, were shot and killed off-duty by an on-duty police officer, by comparison to the high

number of arrest-related or lethal-force-scenario killings unrelated to off-duty officers on a

yearly basis (pg. 745). However, nearly all incidents involved some degree of mistaken action

during interactions, leading up to the shootings that occurred. This has the shadowy implication

of the previous psychological factors analyzed; Place two tension-trained individuals into a

simple situation they’ve been told to treat as high-stress, and things are certain to take a

downfall.

The race factor. In 9 of the 10 off-duty police-on-police shootings between 1989 and

2009, race was indicated as a defining factor in the initial approach leading to the interaction that

caused the shooting, as 8 of the officers were African-American and one was Hispanic

(Charbonneau, Spencer, & Glaser, 2017, pg. 745). This directly highlights the concern of a race-

profiling-based, confrontation-trained police force that causes such a dramatic racial disparity

effecting even the officers that practice it. Officers tend to profile minorities more deeply, but

also approach common situations with an “eliminate potential threats” mindset, perhaps

highlighting minority individuals as a greater ‘possible threat’, and as such, responding in an

overly aggressive manner.

 NORMALIZING DEADLY FORCE 8

Conclusion

In the end, we walk away from an examination of law enforcement’s use of force policies

regarding lethal force scenarios with a question in mind; What do we target as the root of the

issue? Is it the conflicting national and local legislations that open a subjective loophole,

allowing for broad applications of force that can still be justified under the protection of the law?

Could it be the ‘cop versus clock’ aspect of police training that teaches our officers to look at

even the most basic scenarios as races against life or death? Or is the very root of the issue a

complicated mesh of both, effecting the very mental state of the law enforcement men and

women that emerge into a society full of expectations and demands? We are handed an image of

a disconnected, hostility-oriented law enforcement power that is hurting the people it protects

with aggressive methodology and harming even their own officers in police-on-police shootings

escalated by rash misinterpretation. Perhaps the exact cause and effect can never be truly

connected with a straight line, but risk factors and contributing symptoms can be identified and

rectified, wholly lessening the problem as we move society forward. It is up to us as a society to

begin pinpointing these problems, looking deeper, and begin pressing for change that will close

the gaps and break the cycle of normalizing excessive uses of force, especially lethal force,

which is endangering the lives of possibly-innocent individuals and even lower level criminal

offenders when put up against officers trained to identify the fastest route of elimination over

simply de-escalating the risk factors.

 NORMALIZING DEADLY FORCE 9

References
Alonso, J. A. (2018). How Police Culture Affects the Way Police Departments View and Utilize

Deadly Force Policies under the Fourth Amendment. Arizona Law Review, 60(4), 987–

1012.

Baker, Debbie (2014). How police are trained in deadly force. Retrieved from

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-police-deadly-force-training-academy-

ferguson-2014aug23-story.html

Broomé, R. E. (2011). An Empathetic Psychological Perspective of Police Deadly Force

Training. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 42(2), 137–156. doi:

10.1163/156916211x599735

Charbonneau, A., Spencer, K., & Glaser, J. (2017). Understanding Racial Disparities in Police

Use of Lethal Force: Lessons from Fatal Police-on-Police Shootings. Journal of Social

Issues, 73(4), 744–767. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12246

National Institute of Justice (2019) Overview of Police Use of Force. Retrieved from

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/overview-police-use-force