Decisionmaking and the Police Use
of Deadly Force
Rick Parent, PhD, Sergeant; Manager, Research and Academic
Development, Justice Institute of British Columbia Police Academy
Simon N. Verdun-Jones, JSD, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser
University
A precarious relationship exists between democratic societies and the police
agencies that have been created for the purpose of maintaining law and social
order. In an attempt to maintain law and order, police officers may be required
to use force in their day-to-day contact with the public. Police have at their
disposal the capacity to act as judge, jury, and executioner, if need be. Force that is
legitimately and properly applied serves as an essential ingredient in maintaining
an ordered society (McLaughlin, 1992; Ross, 2002).
The decision to use deadly force, however, is of such significance that, if at any
time a death results, the appropriateness of the action will always be questioned.
Police use of lethal force can only occur in those few situations in which no other
reasonable option is available. When an officer is issued a firearm, the expectation
is that it will only be used in very limited circumstances. The vast majority of police
officers within the United States and Canada will complete their entire careers,
without having to shoot or utilize potentially deadly force (Griffiths, Parent, &
Whitelaw, 1999). In those rare instances when deadly force is used, however, the
decisionmaking by the officer is often complex, multifaceted, and instantaneous.
When police officers use firearms against individuals, it is assumed that they are
using lethal force. Police officers within the United States and Canada are trained
to shoot to kill contrary to the common notion that training involves techniques
in wounding assailants. Police firearms training emphasizes hitting the target’s
centre of mass to eliminate a potentially lethal threat; however, the majority of
people shot by police do not die (Parent, 1996, 2004).
Generally, officers who discharge a firearm or utilize other potentially deadly
force are attempting to immediately incapacitate a perceived threat. This decisionmaking process will usually transpire when the individual officer is under stress,
allowing for the influence of both physiological and psychological factors (Parent,
2004).
In North America, both law and policy govern police use of force. The use of
deadly force by the police must occur only within the parameters of state and
federal legislation as well as organizational policies. Within this legal framework,
the police are also empowered to utilize discretion. Geller and Scott (1992) define
official discretion as an authority conferred by law to act in certain situations in
accordance with an official’s or an official agency’s own considered judgment and
conscience. Government legislation and organizational policies within the United
States and Canada serve to provide only the outer limits of police discretion in
using force.

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2007 • 7(3)	139

There is no obligation for the police to use force whenever it would be legally
justifiable. The use of force, including deadly force, is dependent upon both the
unique circumstances of the incident and the unique decisionmaking of the officer.
If two officers are faced with the exact same circumstances, one individual officer
may decide to employ deadly force while the other may choose a nonlethal method
of dealing with the perceived situation. Thus, both discretion and perception may
vary between individuals.

Incident Evaluation and Force Options
Prior to reacting to any situation with the application of force, a police officer
is required to evaluate the incident. Through analysis of all of the information
known, a police officer will attempt to select the most appropriate use-of-force
response. By law, and by profession, the response must be the least violent option
available that will safely gain control of the situation (JIBC, 1992, 2006).
When police officers find themselves facing a violent individual or superior
numbers, the level of potential danger is increased significantly. As a result, the
police officer must quickly disable the attacker(s) and improve the likelihood of
control. In these instances, compliance tools, such as pepper spray and impact
weapons, may provide the necessary means for the police officer to control the
situation.
When a police officer determines that physical force is necessary to establish
control, the officer must compare his or her own physical abilities with those that
are exhibited by the subject. Since there is no field test by which an officer can
“measure” their subject, a visual evaluation occurs. Factors that will contribute to
the police officer’s assessment of the subject include the individual’s size, gender,
demonstrated skills, muscular development, and age. In conducting this rapid
field assessment, the officer will compare his or her potential for achieving control
to the subject’s potential to resist. A police officer who reasonably believes that he
or she possess a physical advantage will generally be able to gain control of the
subject with a minimal level of force (Griffiths et al., 1999; JIBC, 1992, 2006).
Demonstrated Threats
Individuals who police officers confront can demonstrate various levels of potential
danger. These dangers are typically in the form of weapons or levels of resistance.
When dealing with weapons, both the type of weapon and the manner in which it
is carried or held can influence an officer’s perception of potential danger.
The dangers associated with levels of resistance can quickly change within
the context of any particular incident, and as such, police must be alert to all
possibilities. Levels of resistance can be broken down into six distinct categories:
1. Nonverbal Intimidation – Gestures and facial expressions that present an
aggressive position
2. Verbal Noncompliance – Threats, arguments, or refusal to obey a lawful request
3. Passive Resistance – Dead weight, linked arms, sit-ins, etc.
4. Defensive Resistance – Physical actions that impede the police officer

140

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2007 • 7(3)

5. Active Aggression – Actual assault upon the officer(s) by way of punching or
kicking
6. Deadly Force Assault – Active aggression that places the officer(s) at risk of death
or grievous bodily harm (includes, but not limited to, assaults with various
types of weapons)
Levels of Response
Individuals often have no control over the situation(s) they face; however, some
control can occur by exercising an appropriate level of response. These responses
include five distinct force options that are available to all individuals, not only
police personnel:
1. Presence – The mere presence of an individual may alter the behavior of the
participants at an altercation, thereby facilitating control.
2. Dialogue – Verbal and nonverbal communication skills may resolve the conflict
and result in voluntary compliance.
3. Empty Hands – Physical force is issued to gain control.
4. Compliance Tools – Empty hands are insufficient to gain control, and as a result,
equipment or weapons must be used.
5. Deadly Force – The situation requires complete incapacitation of the subject in
order to gain control. As a result, deadly force is the only option available to
reduce the lethal threat.

Theoretical Explanations for the Police Use of Deadly Force
Within this framework, researchers in the United States have attempted to explain
the underlying reasons for extreme violence including police use of deadly force
(MacDonald, Kaminski, Alpart, & Tennenbaum, 2003; White, 2003). In their
attempts, researchers have derived a number of theoretical perspectives, each
providing a viewpoint that must be considered within the unique circumstances
of individual lethal force incidents. Wolfgang and Ferracuti’s (1967) “subculture of
violence” is one of the most cited theories of violence. These authors present the
concept that there exists in different communities “subculture(s) with a cluster of
values that support and encourage the overt use of force in interpersonal relations
and group interactions” (p. 314).
Geller and Scott (1992) state that the structural theory asserts the significance of
“broad-scale” societal forces, such as lack of opportunity, institutional racism,
persistent poverty, demographic transitions, and population density; these combine
to determine both homicide rates and to influence the police use of deadly force.
It is argued that these factors serve to facilitate violent crime within a community,
thereby influencing the propensity for police use of deadly force (MacDonald et.
al., 2001).
The interactional theory focuses upon the character of relationships that escalate
into homicide. Police use of force is seen as resulting from the interaction process
itself. The act of the participant precipitates the acts of the police officer. This may
result in an escalation of conflict that culminates in deadly force being utilized. In
their 1982 study, Best and Luckenbill state that the most severe form of violence,
murder, takes a sequential form. In his analysis of 70 murder cases, it was noted
Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2007 • 7(3)	141

that in every case, the killing was a culmination of an interchange between the
offender and the “target” (victim).
The transaction of violence would occur in a sequential form. The “target” would
act in a manner that the offender deemed to be offensive. In response, the offender
would typically retaliate with a verbal or physical challenge. These events would
establish a “working agreement,” favoring the use of violence. A battle would then
ensue, typically leaving the target dead or dying (Best & Luckenbill, 1982, pp.
161-166).
In applying Luckenbill’s theory to police use of deadly force, the police officer
would typically take on the role of the target. A police officer unknowingly
attending the scene of an in-progress crime or, attempting to intervene in a violent
situation, is typically perceived as the “offensive individual” by threatening the
goal of the perpetrator.
As this interaction commences, it becomes apparent to both the target (police
officer) and the offender (suspect) that each individual favors opposing outcomes.
The police officer, if allowed to fulfill his or her role, will not only terminate
the offender’s progress towards his or her goal but will also hold the offender
accountable for his or her actions. In most instances, this accountability will
occur in a court of law with consequences that may include punishment and the
possibility of imprisonment.
It is within this context that the offender retaliates with the use of violence or
the threat of violence. The offender sees the option of surrender or compliance as
being an unsuitable means of settling the confrontation (Hannon, 2004; Luckenbill,
1977).
The offender’s actions, or inaction, will ultimately determine what level of force
is required by the police officer. Should the offender choose to display a real, or
perceived, potentially lethal threat towards the officer or another individual,
then it is likely that police personnel will respond with their firearms or other
appropriate levels of force.
Violence by police is also said to be situational in nature. In each particular
situation, there is a unique set of dynamics that include personality, stress, and
danger. Parent (1996, 2004) significantly emphasizes that, in some instances, the
police officer is forced to react within seconds, and there is little that the involved
officers can do differently to alter the nature of their encounter.
An essential factor in controlling this situation is the obligation of individual police
officers to check for specific factors as they approach the scene of a potentially
violent encounter. The mere presence of a police officer may serve to intensify and
escalate the situation into which they are entering. Researchers have noted that a
key factor in increasing the amount of time available to an officer is the training in
violence reduction (JIBC, 2006; Parent, 1996). This would include such matters as
deciding upon how, and when, to enter a situation, and what precautions to take
including developing a habit of checking in-progress crime scenes for the purpose
of identifying dangers, options, and bystanders (Geller & Scott, 1992; JIBC, 2006).

142

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2007 • 7(3)

Physiological Influences upon Decisionmaking
It is also important to recognize that an officer engaged in a potentially lethal
encounter will experience a variety of perceptual alterations. Tunnel vision may
occur, which, in effect, nullifies the officer’s peripheral vision. The officer may
require this vision in order to see other dangers and other alternatives to deadly
force or to become aware of the presence of innocent bystanders (Klinger, 2001;
Sheehan & Warren, 2001).
Researchers have cited “time distortions” and “increased auditory and visual
acuity” among other physiological effects of high-stress confrontations. The
physiological changes (more commonly known as the “fight or flight syndrome”)
are intrinsic within human beings, acting as survival mechanisms (Klinger, 2001;
Sheehan & Warren, 2001). Murray and Zentner (1975) note that the “alarm stage”
is an instantaneous, short-term, life-preserving, and total-sympathetic-nervoussystem response that occurs when a person consciously or unconsciously perceives
a danger-inducing stressor.
Upon stimulating the sympathetic nervous system, epinephrine is released from
the adrenal medulla and, at the adrenergic nerve endings, is transported to target
areas. The cardiovascular rate and output are increased, making more blood
available. At the same time, the blood supply is shunted to the brain, heart, and
skeletal muscles. The respiratory rate and depth are increased to ensure adequate
oxygenation. The individual’s metabolism is increased up to 150%, providing
immediate energy and producing more body heat. Muscle tone is increased so
that activities may be better coordinated. Pupils dilate so that maximum light can
be used in viewing the situation. Vision is initially sharp. Finally, less essential
functions such as digestion and excretion are diminished and sphincters tighten
(Murray & Zentner, 1975).
These physiological changes enable the individual to act appropriately upon
being faced with a perceived danger; however, there are times when, with the
intensification of stress, opposite physiological changes can occur. Cardiovascular
output may diminish, and respiration may become difficult with hyperventilation
and dizziness occurring. The person may feel nauseated and hungry, muscle tone
may relax to the extent that incoordination results. Pupil dilation may become
fixed causing blurred vision. Finally, an individual’s sphincter tone may diminish
to the extent that involuntary defecation or urination occurs (Klinger, 2001; Murray
& Zentner, 1975).
Individual officers who have been involved in shootings have detailed how the
often split-second incident appeared to unfold in “slow motion” with their only
focus being upon the actions of the assailant. In most cases, the police officers have
responded to the perceived threat in an “automatic” manner, based upon their
repeated training in dealing with life-threatening situations. In the vast majority of
cases, a potentially violent encounter will develop into a lethally violent situation
in just a matter of seconds (Klinger, 2001; Parent, 1996, 2004; Sheehan and Warren,
2001).
The perceptual alterations that occurred within the officer (usually within seconds)
are frequently met in an equal amount of time by the deployment of deadly force.
Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2007 • 7(3)	143

This situation has typically caused police investigators and external reviewers,
such as the courts, to take the view that it would be unrealistic and unfair to expect
that a police officer, facing a perceived threat to his or her life or that of another
individual, must take the “time” to explore all the options and variables present.
Owing to the dynamics of a typical shooting situation, both the police and courts
have tended to view any controversial hindsight as being unrealistic (Klinger,
2001; Parent, 1996, 2004).
This is not to say, however, that police officers should be relieved of their obligation
to check for specific factors as they approach the scene of a potentially violent
encounter. The police officer must invoke information-gathering and tactical
decisionmaking prior to the onset of a violent encounter. The rapid timing and
physiological effects that occur during the violent encounter will reduce the force
options available to the officer, often leaving him or her with no alternative but the
use of deadly force.

The Influence of Stress upon Decisionmaking
Stress is a physical and emotional state that is always present in a person but is
intensified when environmental change or threat occurs to which the individual
must respond. An individual’s survival depends upon constant negotiation between
environmental demands and the person’s own adaptive capacities (Klinger, 2001).
Human performance under adverse conditions has been the focus of research for
a number of years. Schade, Bruns, and Morrison (1989) state that experimentation
and observational examination of threat, stress, and anxiety suggest that elevated
stress levels negatively affect any performance. These authors note that physical
and social settings serve to heighten anxiety including dark or poorly lit places,
high crime and violence areas, angry or upset people, and nonsupportive social
structures. While these factors affect all individuals, police officers are likely to
experience even higher levels of anxiety, as they often have little choice in entering
a dangerous situation.
Skolnick (1966) stated that in reaction to the pressures they face, police officers
develop “perceptual shorthand” to identify certain kinds of people as “symbolic
assailants.” These symbolic assailants are individuals who use specific gestures,
language, and attire that the officer has come to recognize as a prelude to violence.
This may also apply to symbolic settings that the officer has come to recognize as
having the potential for danger.
The responding police officer’s arousal level will be heightened upon confronting
a perceived symbolic situation. This recognition and arousal pattern may serve to
“trigger” the use of deadly force, whether it is actually required or not. An officer’s
preconceived expectation may serve to alter facts, thereby creating an improper
situational assessment and response. Symbolic situations may additionally
provoke fear within an individual officer. This fear may include the fear of serious
injury, fear of disability, or fear of death (Klinger, 2001; Sheehan & Warren, 2001).
Additional stressors within policing include the recent deinstitutionalization
of the mentally ill and the increased usage of mind-altering and hallucinogenic
drugs. These two factors alone have forced the police to deal with more disturbed
and violent individuals. The recent widespread manufacture and distribution of
144

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2007 • 7(3)

methamphetamine has also added to this situation, frequently causing the user
to be aggressive and violent. Police officers, more than ever before, are likely to
encounter violent or deranged individuals on a frequent basis.
In the past 15 years, large numbers of distressed individuals suffering from
diseases such as schizophrenia have been released from institutions. Many of
these individuals are now living on the streets and are frequently encountered
by the police (JIBC, 2006; Parent, 2004). The behavior exhibited by a mentally
ill individual can easily be misinterpreted as an aggressive act, indicating the
requirement for the use of force. In many instances, police officers must be able
to assess and interpret the cues of an individual (often within seconds) in order to
ascertain the correct procedure in dealing with him or her. For example, a mentally
distressed individual waving a knife in the air, while shouting and raging, may be
“talked down” by a police officer using verbal communication techniques.
This same mentally distressed individual, however, may cause another officer to
perceive that his or her life is in danger, thereby requiring the use of deadly force.
Police officers are now increasingly placed in the precarious situation of being
required to assess correctly and instantaneously the people they confront on the
street.
Finally, these events have been exacerbated by the perception that the corrections
system releases untreated dangerous offenders prematurely into the community.
The prognosis for many of these individuals is that they will offend once again.
Nevertheless, legislation requires that offenders be released into society upon the
completion of their sentence. This situation further serves to intensify both the
fear and stress level(s) of individual police officers. The police may unknowingly
have to deal with a released dangerous offender, one who has demonstrated the
potential for violence (Griffiths et al., 1999).

Conclusion
Modern-day police agencies are faced with having to deal with both contemporary
crime and a general public who often expect immediate solutions to problems
that are deeply rooted within society. These solutions must be achieved within the
parameters of legislation, constitutional guarantees, and the complexities of our
criminal justice system. The police are additionally expected to maintain a level
of service that is considered to be professional, accountable, and transparent to all
individuals within society.
Unlike other occupations within society, however, realistic “street” conditions
within the United States and Canada have caused the police to be preoccupied
with the potential for violence during their day-to-day duties. Police agencies
within North America perceive that they are tasked with policing a violent society,
an ineffective criminal justice system, and offenders who may be armed with
superior weaponry. Added to this situation, technology has created cheap and
effective monitoring devices available to all members of the public. Police officers
are not only expected to uphold the law, but their very behavior in doing so is
frequently monitored and criticized by the public (Griffiths et al., 1999; JIBC, 2006;
Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993).

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2007 • 7(3)	145

In conclusion, the various theories and empirical studies surrounding the police
use of deadly force and potentially deadly force have been analyzed and discussed.
Throughout these various explanations, it is clear that no single theory serves to
explain why the police use of deadly force occurs.
The noted levels of stress and fear faced by police officers may serve as explanatory
variables in police use of deadly force. An officer who perceives a threat will act on
that perception. The physiological and psychological changes that occur to police
officers under stress may also serve as important factors in an officer’s decision to
deploy deadly force.
In many instances, organizational, physiological, psychological, and sociological
forces combine to influence and direct the individual police officer in the deployment
of deadly force. These same physiological, psychological, and sociological factors
may equally influence and direct the role of the victim, leading to his or her demise
in a deadly force encounter. Future research regarding decisionmaking and the
police use of deadly force will hopefully provide additional insight and solutions
to a complex social problem.

References
Best, J., & Luckenbill, D. F. (1982). Organizing deviance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Geller, W. A., & Scott, M. S. (1992). Deadly force: What we know - A practitioner’s desk
reference on police-involved shootings. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research
Forum.
Griffiths, C., Parent, R., & Whitelaw, B. (1999). Canadian police work. Scarborough,
Ontario, Canada: ITP Nelson.
Hannon, L. (2004). Race, victim-precipitated homicide, and the subculture of
violence thesis. Social Science Journal, 41(1), 115-121.
Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC). (1992). Police use of force, the
“comprehensive” model: Progressive guidelines for BC municipal police officers.
Vancouver, British Columbia: Author.
JIBC. (2006). Police recruit training manual. Block I and block lll. New Westminster,
British Columbia: Author.
Klinger, D. (2001). Police responses to officer-involved shootings. St. Louis, MO: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Luckenbill, D. F. (1977). Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Social Problems,
25, 176-186.
MacDonald, J., Kaminski, R., Alpert, G., & Tennenbaum, A. (2001). The temporal
relationship between police killings of civilians and criminal homicide: A refined
version of the danger-perception theory. Crime & Delinquency, 47(2), 155-177.

146

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2007 • 7(3)

MacDonald, J., Manz, P., Alpert, G., & Dunham, R. (2003). Police use of force:
Examining the relationship between calls for service and the balance of police
force and suspect resistance. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2), 119-127.
Manolias, M., & Hyatt-Williamson, A. (1986). Study of post shooting experiences in
firearms officers. London, UK: Home Office.
McLaughlin, V. (1992). Police and the use of force: The Savannah Study. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Murray, R., & Zentner, J. (1975). Nursing concepts for health promotion. Toronto:
Prentice Hall.
Parent, R. (1996). Aspects of police use of deadly force in British Columbia: The
phenomenon of victim-precipitated homicide. Unpublished master’s thesis, Simon
Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.
Parent, R. (2004). Aspects of police use of deadly force in North America: The phenomenon
of victim-precipitated homicide. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby, British Columbia.
Ross, D. L. (2002). An assessment of Graham v. Conner, ten years later. Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25(2), 294-318.
Schade, T., Bruns, G., & Morrison, G. (1989). Armed confrontations: Police shooting
performance in threatening environments. American Journal of Police, 8(2), 31-49.
Sheehan, D., & Warren, J. (2001). From critical incident stress to police suicide:
Prevention through mandatory academy and on-the-job training programs.
Suicide and Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, FBI.
Skolnick, J. (1966). Justice without trial: Law enforcement in a democratic society.
New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Skolnick, J., & Fyfe, J. (1993). Above the law: Police and the excessive use of force.
Toronto: Maxwell MacMillan.
White, M. D. (2003). Examining the impact of external influences on police use of
deadly force over time. Evaluation Review, 27(1), 50-78.
Wolfgang, M. E., & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence: Towards an integrated
theory in criminology. New York: Tavistock.
Rick Parent, PhD, holds the rank of sergeant and is the manager of Research
and Academic Development at the Justice Institute of British Columbia Police
Academy.
Simon N. Verdun-Jones, JSD, is a professor in the School of Criminology
at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. He has
published extensively in the areas of criminal law, criminal justice, and
Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2007 • 7(3)	147

forensic mental health. He is particularly interested in comparative criminal
justice issues and is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the
International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, a
United Nations-affiliated institute located in Vancouver, British Columbia.

148

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2007 • 7(3)