The law of deadly force

Desjardins takes the lead for the eighth class, and Ferris sits at the side of the room. He writes one sentence on the board: 'A police officer may use deadly force only when it is objectively reasonable, which in practice means when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to protect someone from an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury.' 'Everything in this lesson is a way of unpacking that sentence,' he says. 'Learn it so well that you could say it in your sleep, and then learn what every word in it means.'

This lesson sets out the law that governs police use of deadly force with firearms, the policies that add to the law, and how investigators, prosecutors, courts and review boards apply them. It does not replace the general law of force covered in earlier courses, but it focuses on the most serious decision an officer can make.

The constitutional framework

The main source of the law on police use of deadly force in the United States is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects people against unreasonable seizures. Shooting at a person is a seizure, so it must be reasonable. In Graham v. Connor (1989), the Supreme Court held that all claims that police used excessive force during an arrest or other seizure are judged by a standard of objective reasonableness: whether the officer's actions were reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, and allowing for the fact that officers often make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.

In Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the Supreme Court held that deadly force may not be used to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and that, where feasible, a warning should be given first. The case arose from the shooting of an unarmed teenager fleeing a burglary, and it struck down laws in many states that had allowed officers to shoot any fleeing felon.

In Barnes v. Felix (2025), the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the moment-of-threat doctrine that some lower courts had used, under which a court looked only at the final seconds before an officer fired. The Court held that the reasonableness of force must be judged on the totality of the circumstances, including events before the shooting, such as the reason for the stop. It left open whether an officer's own role in creating the danger makes the force less reasonable.

What the words mean

Objective reasonableness means that the officer's own motives do not decide the question. An officer who acted in bad faith but whose force was objectively reasonable has not violated the Fourth Amendment, and an officer who acted in good faith but whose force was objectively unreasonable has. Courts consider, among other things, the severity of the crime, whether the person posed an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, and whether the person was actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight. For deadly force, the central question is whether there was an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury.

Several ideas run through both countries' law. The threat must be one of death or serious injury, not a lesser harm or a threat only to property. It must be imminent or immediate, not speculative. The force must be necessary, which means that a less dangerous option would not have worked in the circumstances. And the whole situation is considered, including what the officer knew, what the officer could see and hear, how much time there was and what other options were available. The law does not require officers to wait until they are shot at before firing, and it does not require them to retreat from someone threatening their lives. But it does require them to stop firing when the threat ends.

Policy adds to the law

Police policies usually go further than the minimum the law requires. In Ohio, the state's first standard on police use of deadly force, adopted in 2015 by a panel appointed by the governor, begins with the statement that the preservation of human life is of the highest value in the state of Ohio, and allows deadly force only to defend officers or others from serious physical harm or death. Agencies that seek certification under the Ohio Collaborative's standards adopt policies meeting it. Federal agencies follow a Department of Justice policy updated in 2022 that is stricter than the constitutional minimum in several ways: it allows deadly force only when necessary, meaning the officer reasonably believes the subject poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury; it forbids deadly force solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect; it forbids warning shots outside prisons; it forbids firing solely to disable a moving vehicle; and it requires officers to intervene to stop excessive force and to render medical aid. Many local agencies, including Port Ardent, have adopted similar rules.

Consequences when force is unlawful

A police officer who uses deadly force without legal justification can be prosecuted under state criminal law for offenses such as murder, voluntary manslaughter, reckless homicide or felonious assault, and in serious cases under federal civil rights law. In Ohio, the Bureau of Criminal Investigation investigates most police shootings, and the prosecutor decides whether to bring charges, often by presenting the case to a grand jury. The Ohio Attorney General's special prosecutions section has reported presenting 42 such cases to grand juries since 2019, which resulted in 37 decisions not to indict, four felony indictments and one misdemeanor indictment. Officers can also be sued for damages under a federal civil rights law, 42 U.S.C. section 1983, though the doctrine of qualified immunity protects them unless they violated clearly established law. And they can be disciplined or fired by their agency for violating policy even when no crime was committed.

Desjardins emphasizes the last point. Policy violations are judged by the agency against its own rules, which are often stricter than the law. An officer can be cleared of any crime and still be found to have violated policy, for example by firing at a moving vehicle when the policy forbids it, or by failing to activate a camera. Investigators and reviewers keep these questions separate: was the force lawful, was it within policy, and what can be learned?

Applying the law to Kettle Creek Road

At about 3:11 a.m. on Sunday, August 23, 2026, Officer Femi Okeke fired three rounds at Dale Vossberg at the Kettle Creek Road boat launch, a few seconds after Vossberg raised a hunting rifle and fired one round toward the patrol car behind which Okeke and Officer Nadine Coutu had taken cover. The round struck the front of the car. Vossberg was struck once, fell and dropped the rifle, and Okeke stopped firing. Lesson 9 examines the decisions leading up to that moment, Lesson 11 the medical aid and investigation that followed, and Lesson 12 the whole incident.

The Ardent County Prosecutor presented the case, based on the Bureau of Criminal Investigation's report, to a grand jury, which declined to indict Okeke. Applying Graham and Barnes, the prosecutor's summary noted that Vossberg had just fired a rifle toward the officers and was still holding it, that there was an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to Okeke and Coutu, and that Okeke stopped firing when Vossberg fell and dropped the rifle. Vossberg himself is charged with offenses arising from the incident and is presumed innocent. His trial is scheduled for 2027.

Amara Okafor asks what would have changed the legal analysis. Desjardins gives three examples. If Vossberg had put the rifle down and turned to walk toward the water, the threat would have ended and firing would not have been necessary. If Okeke had kept firing after Vossberg fell and let go of the rifle, the later rounds would have been judged separately and might have been excessive. And if a camper had been sitting on the dock directly behind Vossberg, the fourth safety rule, and the law's concern for bystanders, would have made firing much harder to justify, even though Vossberg was a threat.

Drawing and pointing are decisions too

Students often think of the law of deadly force as being only about the decision to fire. But drawing a firearm and pointing it at a person are also decisions that the law and policy govern. Courts in the United States have held that pointing a firearm at a person can itself be an unreasonable use of force under the Fourth Amendment if the circumstances do not justify it, for example when the person poses no threat. Port Ardent's policy requires officers to report every time they point a firearm at a person. Pointing a firearm at someone is frightening and can escalate a situation, and a firearm that is pointed is a firearm that can be fired by mistake.

Desjardins asks the students to remember Riverside Park. Okeke drew and pointed his pistol because he reasonably believed that Wren might be holding a real handgun. As soon as Wren put the object down and stepped away, the reason for pointing the pistol ended, and Okeke lowered it and then holstered it once the replica was secured. His report explained each step. 'The same reasoning governs every stage,' Desjardins says. 'Draw only when the law allows it, point only when the law allows it, fire only when the law allows it, and stop each one when the reason ends.'

He adds that officers should expect every one of those decisions to be reviewed. Supervisors read the reports, compare them with camera footage and look for patterns. An officer who draws or points far more often than colleagues on similar calls will be asked why, and the answer may lead to coaching rather than discipline.