Deadly force: What's changed, what hasn't

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

A federal civil rights investigation into the death of Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man who died after a violent arrest by Memphis, Tenn., officers on Jan. 7, is prompting renewed attention to the use of excessive force.

Since George Floyd's death in May 2020, many jurisdictions have passed measures requiring de-escalation, limiting the use of force and banning chokeholds. In Washington, the Justice in Policing Act passed in the House but languished in the Senate. It would have established a national use-of-force standard and overhauled qualified immunity protections for police officers.

Taken together, the measures add up to the most far-reaching demand to transform policing in the nation's history. But the Supreme Court signaled in two rulings in October 2021 that it continued to support qualified immunity.

Here's what we know about when officers can use deadly force.

When does the law allow for deadly force?

"The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in the majority opinion.

Although this "split-second" standard allows judges and juries to question an officer's decisions, they are instructed not to use the benefit of hindsight. "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene," the ruling says.

Generally, officers are authorized to use lethal force only if they reasonably believe that a person poses a danger to police or the public. In 1985, the Supreme Court had ruled that it was not legal for officers to shoot fleeing suspects in the back solely to keep them from evading arrest, and later rulings asserted that a suspect's being armed does not, on its own, give an officer the right to shoot.

So what does 'reasonable' actually mean?

It can be broken down into two core components, said Sharon Fairley, a former federal prosecutor who led the Civilian Office of Police Accountability in Chicago.

The case of Derek Chauvin, the white police officer who was convicted on two counts of murder as well as manslaughter for kneeling on Floyd, who died in the encounter, offers an example.

"According to some of the witnesses who took the stand, the act of putting him on the ground was probably seen as reasonable under the circumstances," said Fairley, who teaches at the University of Chicago Law School. "But when he represented no continuing threat to the officer, that's when it became unreasonable."

How has footage from body cameras and cellphones changed policing?

A sea change occurred in the fall of 2014, when a grand jury in Ferguson, Mo., decided not to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting that summer of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old Black man. There was no footage of the shooting, and Brown's family called for every police officer in the country to wear a body camera.

The Obama administration then committed to funding body camera programs across the United States. Only a few dozen police departments were using cameras at that time; today the figure is around 10,000. Some research shows a statistically significant reduction in use of force after body cameras are put into use. The cameras also appear to reduce the number of complaints from civilians, who know that their actions, too, are being recorded.

Is use of force standardized across all police forces?

No, there are no national standards.

Charges against officers are typically rare, but prosecutors have charged officers in several cities who were seen on camera using deadly force.

The officer who fatally shot Philando Castile, a 32-year-old Black man driving with his girlfriend and daughter in Falcon Heights in 2016, was acquitted of manslaughter. The officer, who shot Castile five times at close range said he fired his weapon out of fear that Castile might have been reaching for a gun, a fear that was mistaken.

In Minneapolis, Chauvin could not defend his actions by saying that Floyd's suffocation resulted from a split-second decision because video images and witness accounts showed that he continued to kneel on Floyd for more than nine minutes.

The many critics of the split-second standard cite a litany of police shootings of Black people. They argue that implicit racial bias leads officers to fear potential danger from Black people more than white people in similar situations. Because the standard hinges on the police officer's perception of danger, critics say, it leads to racial disparities.

What do police think?

Some police advocates argue that the new rules could violate officers' rights to defend themselves. Police unions say that the split-second decision standard is essential to keeping officers and the public safe.

In April 2021, Ma'Khia Bryant, 16, who according to a body-camera video was wielding a knife and had threatened two girls, was fatally shot by an officer in Columbus, Ohio.

"If the officer doesn't act, there's a strong probability that an individual will be killed," Larry James, general counsel for the Fraternal Order of Police, said of the shooting.