Deadly Force

• Author: William Terrill
• Date: 01 May 2016
• Published date: 01 May 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12193

POLICY ESSAY

THE REVERSE RACISM EFFECT

Deadly Force

To Shoot or Not to Shoot

William Terrill

Arizona State University

Apolice officer’s decision to use deadly force is one of the most critical and powerful

decisions of any government official. Reports of questionable police shootings have

become part of the U.S. landscape since the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson,

MO, in the summer of 2014. It is not unusual to turn on the television, or access any other

media format, and hear a host of “commentators” discuss the growing problem of police

use of deadly force, irrespective of whether empirical evidence supports such an assertion.

Nonetheless, what is clear is that there has been growing public concern with respect to

police use of deadly force as more and more video clips emerge of questionable shootings,

especially as they relate to race. In fact, it is not a stretch to state that the United States is

experiencing the most widespread period of civil unrest since the 1960s.

Before delving into this issue more concretely, it is important to provide some legal

background. The police possess a legal mandate to use coercive tactics with the primary legal

stipulation being that force must be administered in an “objectively reasonable” manner

(Graham v. Connor, 1989). To demonstrate an objectively reasonable action within the

confines of a deadly force encounter requires an imminent deadly threat (or the perception

of such) to the life of the officer or the life of others with narrow exceptions made for

threats that pose substantial risk to others should the police fail to seize a suspected offender

(Tennessee v.Garner, 1985). Of course, what constitutes “objectively reasonable” force almost

inherently requires a subjective interpretation (Terrill, 2009), and therein lies the proverbial

rub. Hence, two people may view the same incident and come to two different conclusions.

As argued elsewhere (Terrill,2014), the police ultimately draw on their coercion power

as a means of control, whether it be for legitimate (e.g., maintain order, ensure safety, or

enforce the law) or illegitimate purposes (e.g., to harass, punish, or denigrate). Yet,even when

the police are seeking a legitimate end purpose, the application of force may be unlawful. One

Direct correspondence to William Terrill, School of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Arizona State University,

411 N. Central Avenue, Suite 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004 (e-mail: William.Terrill@asu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12193 C2016 American Society of Criminology 491

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 2