Use of Force, Control Tactics, and Firearms
Objectively reasonable, not subjectively afraid
Use of force is judged under Graham v. Connor: whether the officer's actions were objectively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances, from the perspective of a reasonable officer on scene, without hindsight. Pennsylvania's statutory frame is 18 Pa.C.S. § 508, which permits force reasonably believed necessary to effect an arrest, prevent escape, or defend self or others, and restricts deadly force to preventing death or serious bodily injury, or apprehending a person the officer reasonably believes has used or threatened such force and cannot otherwise be apprehended.
The totality includes seriousness of the offense, immediacy of the threat, whether the subject is actively resisting or evading, and whether the subject may be armed. Force must be reduced or stopped as the threat decreases, and medical aid provided once the subject is controlled.
Control tactics test safety and physiology. Handcuff, then reposition: prone restraint and weight on the back or neck create positional asphyxia risk, especially with an obese, exhausted, or agitated subject. OC requires decontamination and monitoring. CEW use requires knowing target areas, probe removal, and when a subject's behavior makes a cycle inappropriate.
Firearms: the universal safety rules, muzzle discipline, trigger finger straight until the decision to fire, malfunction clearance, and post-incident procedure (scan, reholster, account for rounds, secure the scene, separate involved officers).
Traps: an answer saying force must escalate step by step - there is no required ladder; an answer resting on subjective fear alone; and shoot-the-fleeing-burglar answers, which Pennsylvania law rejects.
Rule of thumb: articulate the threat in behavior terms ('closed distance with a knife held at waist level, ignoring commands') rather than labels ('he was combative').