Brian Wheeler CJE1600
There is a time for deadly force and there is a time when it is not always necessary. If a suspect just stole something but possesses no threat to anyone physically then no there shouldn’t be deadly force involved. However if a suspect just robbed a bank and is carrying a gun and intending on harming an officer or mere civilian then the use of deadly force needs to be used. Also if an inmate in a prison escaping an officer should try other methods of stopping the inmate first then if those methods do not work they could use deadly force. In the case of an unarmed suspect deadly force should never be used because the suspect is not a direct threat to anyone and there is no need for them to die. As in the case of Tennessee vs. Garner the 15 year old was unarmed and only broke into a house and stole $10 worth of jewelry. Because of this incident the courts ruled that deadly force must not be used unless the suspect is posing a threat to them. Some officers will still use deadly force even if a suspect is unarmed and they just assume that they are posing a threat to them. In my own personal opinion I think that deadly force should never be used except in the most extreme situations where a suspect has a gun and is threatening to either shoot an officer or even another person on the scene. That would be the only time I would see a need for deadly force. It should never be used on and unarmed minor who only broke into a house and stole ten dollars worth of jewelry. That just wrong on the officers part and was completely unnecessary. Therefore there is always a time for deadly force and there is a time where deadly force is not needed.
Criminal Investigations Ninth Edition, Karen M. Hess, Christine Hess Orthmann