Use of Force

Overview

Use of force refers to the actions law enforcement officers may take to gain control of a situation, protect themselves or others, or make an arrest when individuals do not comply with lawful commands. The concept covers a range of behaviors—from verbal commands and physical restraint to non-lethal tools and, at the highest end, deadly force. Laws, departmental policies, and court decisions define when force is justified, how much force is permitted, and how actions are reviewed after the fact. The core principle is proportionality: force must be necessary, reasonable, and tied to a clear government interest.

Core Characteristics

1. Graduated Levels of Force

Use-of-force frameworks typically move along a continuum: presence, verbal direction, physical control, non-lethal tools, and deadly force. Officers escalate or de-escalate based on resistance, threat level, and context.

2. Legal Standards of Reasonableness

Courts evaluate force under an objective standard—what a reasonable officer would do under the same circumstances—based on totality of facts, not hindsight.

3. Necessity and Proportionality

Force must be necessary to achieve a lawful objective and proportionate to the threat or resistance presented.

4. Policy and Training Structure

Departments set rules governing tactics, tools, reporting requirements, supervisory review, and disciplinary processes.

5. Accountability Mechanisms

Internal investigations, external oversight bodies, civilian review boards, and courts assess whether force was applied lawfully and appropriately.

How It Functions in Practice

Use-of-force decisions occur in rapidly changing conditions with incomplete information. Officers assess behavior, threats, environment, and risk to bystanders. Policies emphasize de-escalation—using time, distance, communication, and alternatives to reduce the need for physical force. After an incident, agencies collect reports, review body-camera footage, and evaluate compliance with law and policy.

Deadly force is permitted only under narrow circumstances, typically when an officer reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious harm. Non-lethal tools (such as Tasers, chemical agents, or impact weapons) have their own policies, risks, and reporting requirements. Jurisdictional differences in training, oversight, and data collection produce varied experiences across communities.

Common Misunderstandings

“Use of force only refers to deadly force.”

It includes a wide range of actions, many of which do not involve weapons.

“Use of force requires actual violence.”

Hands-on control, physical restraint, and even certain commands can count as force depending on policy.

“Force is justified if the person resists at all.”

Force must be proportional to the level of resistance and the threat involved.

“Courts review force based on outcomes.”

Courts evaluate the decision based on information available at the moment, not on whether the outcome was harmful.

The Term in Public Discourse

“Use of force” appears in debates about policing, accountability, public safety, and reform. Media coverage commonly focuses on high-profile incidents, often without explaining underlying legal standards or departmental policies. The term is also used inconsistently, sometimes referring only to deadly force, other times to any physical action by an officer.

Why This Term Matters for Civic Understanding

Understanding use of force clarifies the legal standards, policy structures, and accountability mechanisms shaping policing. It helps the public evaluate incidents, interpret official statements, and understand how force decisions fit within constitutional and departmental frameworks.

Neutrality Note

This definition describes use of force as a legal and procedural concept without evaluating specific incidents, departments, or policy models.