Use of Force and Tactical Decision-Making
Use of Force and Tactical Decision-Making tests your ability to review force under the legal standard and to guide tactics before force is used. A sergeant must separate objective reasonableness from personal opinion and must document the facts that drove the decision.
Legal standard
For constitutional purposes, force is judged by objective reasonableness under Graham v. Connor: severity of the crime, immediate threat, and active resistance or flight, plus the totality of circumstances. California adds Penal Code § 835a: deadly force is justified only when necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury or to apprehend a fleeing person for a qualifying felony, and officers must use feasible alternatives and de-escalation. The “necessity” standard is more restrictive than “reasonable.” Review must consider pre-force tactics, warnings, repositioning, cover, time, and available resources.
Worked example
An officer strikes an actively resisting arrestee with a baton. The sergeant should not ask only “was the officer scared?” The review should establish the arrest offense, the subject’s actions, warnings, other officers present, whether control holds, additional officers, or disengagement were feasible, the number and location of strikes, medical aid, and reporting. Reasoning: force is evaluated from the totality, not a single phrase.
Traps that cost marks
- Hindsight judging (“the officer should have known”).
- Accepting “I feared for my safety” without facts.
- Missing duty to intercede and medical aid.
- Failing to document pre-force de-escalation.