16.2 Use of Force Continuum, Justification (ARS 13-409-411) & Less Lethal Weapons

16.2 Use of Force Continuum, Justification (ARS 13-409-411) & Less Lethal Weapons

AZPOST Comprehensive Examination Focus: Peace officer recruits must thoroughly master the constitutional seizure doctrines, Arizona statutory justification frameworks under A.R.S. Title 13, Chapter 4, and the operational deployment parameters for less-lethal weapons pursuant to Ariz. Admin. Code R13-4-116(E)(1)(h)(ii). The AZPOST examination places heavy emphasis on the Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness standard articulated in Graham v. Connor, the constitutional limits on deadly force against fleeing felons under Tennessee v. Garner, statutory justification requirements under A.R.S. § 13-409 (physical force in law enforcement), A.R.S. § 13-410 (deadly physical force), and A.R.S. § 13-411 (crime prevention), the subject resistance vs. officer response model, Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW / TASER) electrical dynamics, Neuro-Muscular Incapacitation (NMI), probe spread, and target zones, Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) chemical mechanisms and minimum safe standoff distances (hydraulic needle effect), and expandable baton target zones including strikes classified as deadly force.

The constitutional authority to exercise physical and deadly force is among the most consequential responsibilities conferred upon law enforcement officers. In the United States and within the State of Arizona, use of force is never punitive; it is an operational and custodial instrument authorized solely to overcome unlawful physical resistance, prevent criminal victimization, effect lawful arrests, and protect human life. Officers must navigate both federal constitutional baselines established by the United States Supreme Court and statutory justification mandates enacted under the Arizona Criminal Code.

---

1. Constitutional Foundations: Graham v. Connor (1989)

All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive physical or deadly force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a free citizen are analyzed exclusively under the Fourth Amendment's 'Objective Reasonableness' standard (Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 [1989]).

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                    GRAHAM V. CONNOR CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK            |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  PERSPECTIVE OF A REASONABLE OFFICER ON SCENE                           |
|  - Judged from facts known to officer at the exact moment force was used|
|  - Total prohibition on the "20/20 vision of hindsight"                 |
|                                                                         |
|  ALLOWANCE FOR SPLIT-SECOND DECISIONS                                   |
|  - Calculus of reasonableness accounts for circumstances that are tense,|
|    uncertain, and rapidly evolving                                      |
|                                                                         |
|  SUBJECTIVE INTENT IS CONSTITUTIONALLY IRRELEVANT                       |
|  - Malicious intentions will not make a reasonable use of force illegal |
|  - Good intentions will not make an unreasonable force application legal|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The Perspective of the Reasonable Officer on Scene

In Graham, the Supreme Court recognized that police officers operate in dynamic environments where decisions must be made in fractions of a second. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

• No Requirement of Optimal Hindsight: An officer's decision is not unconstitutional merely because a court, expert, or investigator—sitting in safety weeks or months later with complete information—can identify an alternative tactic that might have worked without force.
• The Tense, Uncertain, and Rapidly Evolving Standard: The law explicitly accounts for the reality that officers are forced to make split-second judgments in high-stress, rapidly escalating encounters.
• Subjective Intent Excluded: Reasoness is an objective legal test. If an officer's force application is objectively reasonable under the known facts, the officer's personal feelings, anger, or subjective malice do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Conversely, if an officer's force application is objectively unreasonable, the officer's "good faith" or benevolent subjective intentions will not rescue the action from constitutional condemnation.

The Graham Three-Prong Factor Test

To determine whether an officer's application of force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, courts balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's liberty against the countervailing governmental interests. This balancing test is anchored by three primary criteria, known as the Graham Three-Prong Factor Test:

                 +-----------------------------------------+
                 |     GRAHAM THREE-PRONG FACTOR TEST     |
                 +-----------------------------------------+
                                      | 
         +----------------------------+----------------------------+
         |                                                         |
         v                                                         v
[ PRONG 1: CRIME SEVERITY ]    [ PRONG 2: IMMEDIATE THREAT ]    [ PRONG 3: RESISTANCE / FLIGHT ]
Is the underlying offense a    Does the suspect present an       Is the suspect actively
violent felony or a minor      imminent physical or lethal       resisting custody or
non-violent misdemeanor?       hazard to officers or others?     attempting to flee arrest?
                               (HEAVIEST WEIGHTED PRONG)

1. Severity of the Crime at Issue: The legal justification for physical intrusion increases with the gravity of the underlying crime. A violent felony involving weapons, assaults, or robbery justifies a higher degree of immediate tactical control than a minor municipal infraction, civil traffic violation, or non-violent misdemeanor property offense.
2. Immediate Threat to Safety: Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others. The courts have repeatedly affirmed that this second factor is the most critical and heavily weighted element of the Graham analysis. Even if the underlying crime was minor, a suspect who suddenly poses an immediate physical threat justifies significant defensive force.
3. Active Resistance or Evading Arrest by Flight: Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Courts distinguish between passive non-compliance (refusing to sit, going limp) and active physical resistance (pulling away, wrestling, clenching limbs, striking). Passive resistance does not authorize high-level physical strikes or intermediate weapons.

Supplemental Judicial Factors (Ninth Circuit Precedents)

Because Arizona sits within the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, recruits must also recognize supplemental factors recognized in regional jurisprudence (Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 [9th Cir. 2010]; Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 [9th Cir. 2001]):

• Availability of Less Intrusive Alternatives: Whether officers considered or attempted lesser force options or tactical disengagement when feasible.
• Subject's Emotional or Mental Disturbance: Whether the suspect exhibited apparent mental illness, suicidal crisis, or emotional disturbance, requiring tactical patience and specialized de-escalation when no immediate threat exists.
• Feasibility of Clear Warnings: Whether the officer provided a clear verbal warning prior to deploying intermediate weapons (e.g., "Stop resisting or you will be Tased!") whenever tactically feasible.

---

2. Tennessee v. Garner (1985) & The Fleeing Felon Doctrine

Historically, common law allowed peace officers to shoot any fleeing felony suspect to prevent escape, regardless of the danger posed by the individual. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the Supreme Court invalidated this rule under the Fourth Amendment, establishing strict constitutional boundaries on the use of deadly physical force against fleeing subjects.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|               TENNESSEE V. GARNER FLEEING FELON STANDARD               |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  DEADLY FORCE MAY NOT BE USED AGAINST AN UNARMED, NON-DANGEROUS SUSPECT |
|                                                                         |
|  DEADLY FORCE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED ONLY WHEN:                 |
|  1. The officer has PROBABLE CAUSE to believe the suspect poses a        |
|     SIGNIFICANT THREAT OF DEATH OR SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY to the       |
|     officer or other persons; AND                                       |
|  2. Such force is necessary to prevent escape; AND                      |
|  3. Where feasible, some VERBAL WARNING has been given                  |
|     ("Police! Halt or I will shoot!")                                  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

• Core Holding: Deadly force is a constitutional seizure of the highest order. It is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to kill an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing burglar or thief simply to prevent their escape.
• The Standard for Fleeing Suspects: Deadly physical force may be deployed to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if:
  1. 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
  2. The use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape; and
  3. Where feasible, a verbal warning has been given.

---

3. Arizona Statutory Justification Framework: A.R.S. Title 13, Chapter 4

Under Arizona law, justification is not merely an affirmative defense; when an officer's conduct is justified under A.R.S. Title 13, Chapter 4, the action is non-criminal, eliminating criminal liability.

Statutory Definitions (A.R.S. § 13-105)

• Physical Force (A.R.S. § 13-105(32)): Force used upon or directed toward the body of another person, including confinement, but does not include deadly physical force.
• Deadly Physical Force (A.R.S. § 13-105(14)): Force that is used with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of creating a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.
• Serious Physical Injury (A.R.S. § 13-105(39)): Physical injury that creates a reasonable risk of death, or that causes serious and permanent disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or loss or protracted impairment of the function of any bodily organ or limb.

A.R.S. § 13-409: Justification for Physical Force in Law Enforcement

A peace officer is justified in using physical force against another person in making an arrest or detention or preventing an escape after arrest or detention if:

1. A reasonable person would believe such force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or detention or prevent escape; and
2. A reasonable person would believe the arrest or detention is lawful; and
3. The officer makes known the purpose of the arrest or detention or reasonably believes that it is already known or cannot reasonably be made known.

[!IMPORTANT] The Notice Requirement of A.R.S. § 13-409: Recruits must note that A.R.S. § 13-409 requires officers to state the purpose of the arrest or detention (e.g., "You are under arrest for assault") unless the circumstances make communication impossible (e.g., instant physical attack) or it is self-evident.

A.R.S. § 13-410: Justification for Use of Deadly Physical Force

A.R.S. § 13-410 codifies the statutory parameters under which a peace officer is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force:

A.R.S. § 13-411: Justification in Crime Prevention

A.R.S. § 13-411 authorizes a person (including a peace officer) to use physical force or deadly physical force if a reasonable person would believe such force is immediately necessary to prevent another from committing any of the following enumerated violent crimes:

• First-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter
• Sexual assault, sexual conduct with a minor under 15 years of age
• Child sex trafficking
• Armed robbery, robbery
• Kidnapping
• Burglary in the first or second degree of an occupied structure
• Arson of an occupied structure

Key Legal Characteristics of A.R.S. § 13-411:

• No Duty to Retreat: The statute explicitly provides that there is no duty to retreat before using justified force.
• Presumption of Reasonableness: A person using force under this statute is presumed to have acted reasonably if they were acting against someone who unlawfully entered or remained in an occupied structure or vehicle.

---

4. The Subject Resistance vs. Officer Response Options Continuum

AZPOST teaches the relationship between subject resistance and officer force options not as a rigid staircase, but as a dynamic, interactive continuum where officers continuously assess threat levels and escalate or de-escalate proportionally.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                    SUBJECT RESISTANCE VS. OFFICER RESPONSE MATRIX                         |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| SUBJECT RESISTANCE TIER        | BEHAVIORAL INDICATORS        | AUTHORIZED OFFICER RESPONSE|
+--------------------------------+------------------------------+----------------------------+
| 1. Psychological Intimidation  | Clenched fists, aggressive   | Professional Presence,     |
|                                | staring, posturing, blading  | Interview Stance, Scanning |
+--------------------------------+------------------------------+----------------------------+
| 2. Verbal Non-Compliance       | Verbal refusal to comply     | Verbal Direction, Tactical |
|                                | with lawful commands         | Communication, De-escalate |
+--------------------------------+------------------------------+----------------------------+
| 3. Passive Resistance          | Dead weight, locking arms    | Soft Empty-Hand Control,   |
|                                | in civil protest, non-violent| Joint Escorts, Pressure Pts|
+--------------------------------+------------------------------+----------------------------+
| 4. Active Resistance           | Pulling away, bracing limbs, | Hard Empty-Hand Control,   |
|                                | running away, wrestling grip | Takedowns, CEW, OC Spray   |
+--------------------------------+------------------------------+----------------------------+
| 5. Active Aggression           | Strikes, punches, kicks,     | Intermediate Weapons:      |
|                                | lunging tackles, wrestling   | Baton muscle strikes, 40mm |
+--------------------------------+------------------------------+----------------------------+
| 6. Aggravated Active Aggression| Firearms, edged weapons,     | Deadly Physical Force      |
|                                | strangulation, weapon grabs  | (A.R.S. § 13-410)          |
+--------------------------------+------------------------------+----------------------------+

• De-Escalation Mandate: Whenever safe and feasible, officers must utilize time, distance, physical barriers, and tactical communication to reduce the necessity of physical force.
• Proportionality: Once a subject ceases active physical resistance and complies (e.g., stops fighting and places hands behind their back), the officer must immediately de-escalate to the minimum force necessary to maintain custodial control.

---

5. Conducted Energy Weapons (CEW / TASER)

Conducted Energy Weapons (such as the Axon Taser 7 and Taser 10) are classified as intermediate less-lethal weapons deployed to incapacitate combative, assaultive, or actively resisting individuals without causing permanent injury.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                   CEW ANATOMICAL TARGETING ZONES                        |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  PREFERRED TARGET: BACK (Below Neck Line)                               |
|  - Largest continuous skeletal muscle mass (latissimus dorsi/glutes)    |
|  - Eliminates cardiac capture hazard and facial/eye trauma              |
|                                                                         |
|  PREFERRED FRONT TARGET: SPLIT THE BELTLINE                             |
|  - Target lower abdomen / hip girdle and upper thigh                    |
|  - Eliminates chest probe impacts                                       |
|                                                                         |
|  PROHIBITED / HIGH RISK: HEAD, NECK, THROAT, CARDIAC TRIANGLE (STERNUM) |
|  - Chest strikes risk CARDIAC CAPTURE (ventricular fibrillation)        |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Neuro-Muscular Incapacitation (NMI) Mechanics

• Electrical Dynamics: CEWs discharge high peak open-circuit voltage (~50,000 volts) to arc through air and penetrate heavy duty clothing. However, the average delivered voltage across the body is low (~1,200 volts), with a remarkably low amperage of 1.2 to 2.1 milliamps (0.0012–0.0021 amps). High amperage causes thermal burns and cardiac electrocution; CEW low amperage operates purely on neurological signal disruption.
• Physiology of NMI: The shaped electrical pulses mimic the body's internal neuro-electrical language, overriding both the sensory and motor nerves of the peripheral nervous system. This causes involuntary, tetanic contraction of skeletal muscle tissue, inducing total physical collapse and incapacitation regardless of the subject's pain tolerance, mental focus, or illicit narcotic intoxication (e.g., PCP, methamphetamine).
• The Probe Spread Requirement: NMI requires electrical current to flow across a significant mass of skeletal muscle. A minimum probe spread of 12 inches (30 cm) is required to achieve reliable NMI. If probes hit with less than 12 inches of separation, the effect is localized pain compliance rather than motor incapacitation.
• Drive-Stun Mode vs. Probe Mode:
  • Probe Mode: Fires dart probes propelled by compressed nitrogen. Produces true NMI when adequate probe spread is achieved.
  • Drive-Stun Mode: Pressing the CEW electrodes directly against the subject's body without probes. Drive-stun acts purely as a localized pain compliance technique; it does NOT achieve Neuro-Muscular Incapacitation unless a deployed probe is already connected elsewhere on the body (three-point contact).

Anatomical Target Zones & Cardiac Capture

• Primary Preferred Target (The Back): The back below the neck is universally the preferred target. It presents the largest continuous muscle groups, provides consistent NMI, and completely eliminates cardiac, facial, and genital injury hazards.
• Front Preferred Target (Split the Beltline): When targeting the front of a subject, officers must aim low: splitting the beltline so one probe embeds in the lower abdomen/waist and the second embeds in the thigh or hip muscle group.
• Prohibited Target Areas: Officers must avoid intentionally aiming probes at the head, face, throat, neck, groin, and the chest/cardiac triangle (sternum).
• The Cardiac Capture Hazard: Extensive electrophysiological research demonstrates that CEW probes penetrating close to the heart (the cardiac triangle across the sternum) can produce cardiac capture—the synchronization of cardiac electrical rhythm with CEW discharge pulses, precipitating ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, and sudden fatal cardiac arrest.

Environmental & Secondary Hazards

Officers must evaluate situational factors where CEW deployment carries lethal secondary risks:

• Flammable Environments: Deploying a CEW in the presence of gasoline vapors, clandestine methamphetamine laboratories, natural gas leaks, or alongside flammable hydrocarbon-based chemical aerosol sprays will cause instantaneous vapor ignition and catastrophic fire.
• Elevated Fall Hazards: A subject experiencing NMI loses all motor control and cannot break a fall. Deploying CEWs against individuals on elevated ledges, roofs, bridges, steep stairways, or retaining walls creates a grave hazard of fatal blunt trauma.
• Water Immersion: Incapacitating a subject standing or wading in deep water can result in fatal drowning.

---

6. Chemical Agents: Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) & CS

Chemical agents provide standoff intermediate control to subdue combative individuals, overcome barricaded subjects, or disperse unlawful violent assemblies.

Oleoresin Capsicum (OC Pepper Spray)

• Chemical Nature: OC is a natural inflammatory agent derived from the oily resin extracted from dried cayenne pepper plants (Capsicum frutescens). The physiological strength is determined by the concentration of Major Capsaicinoids (MC), with law enforcement formulations typically ranging from 0.7% to 1.3% MC.
• Physiological Mechanism: Unlike tear gases that cause sensory nerve irritation, OC causes immediate, acute inflammatory vasodilation of the capillaries upon contact with mucous membranes and skin:
  • Involuntary Blepharospasm: Immediate, uncontrollable rapid swelling and spasm of the eyelids, forcing the subject's eyes shut.
  • Respiratory Inflammation: Acute swelling of respiratory tract linings, producing coughing, gagging, shortness of breath, and a sensation of restricted breathing.
  • Intense Burning: Extreme burning sensation across all exposed dermal surfaces.

The Hydraulic Needle Effect Safety Distance

Law enforcement OC canisters discharge pressurized liquid streams or foam. Discharging an OC canister at a distance of less than 3 feet (36 inches) creates the grave danger of the hydraulic needle effect:

• The kinetic force of the pressurized liquid carrier striking the eyeball at close range can physically penetrate the corneal epithelium, driving capsaicin particulates directly into the soft inner tissues of the eye, causing permanent corneal scarring, ulceration, and blindness.

Decontamination Protocol for OC

1. Move to Fresh Air: Immediately extract the exposed individual from the contaminated area into open, circulating fresh air facing into the wind.
2. Copious Water Flush: Continuously flush the subject's face and open eyes with copious quantities of cool, clean water for 15 to 20 minutes.
3. Do Not Rub Eyes: Direct the subject not to touch or rub their eyes, as rubbing grinds capsaicin resin crystals into the corneal tissue.
4. Prohibition of Oil-Based Products: Peace officers must NEVER apply salves, lotions, creams, or oil-based soaps to an OC-exposed individual. Oil-based compounds trap the non-polar capsaicin oils against the skin, intensifying chemical burns and prolonging recovery.
5. Medical Monitoring: Symptoms typically begin resolving within 30 to 45 minutes. If severe respiratory distress, wheezing, or chest pain persists, or if the individual has underlying asthma or COPD, summon emergency medical personnel immediately.

CS (Orthochlorobenzalmalononitrile) Tear Gas

• CS is a synthetic irritant chemical agent, deployed as a micro-pulverized powder, smoke grenade, or aerosol cloud. CS acts primarily on sensory moisture receptors in the eyes, respiratory tract, and moist skin folds, inducing tearing, burning, and sneezing. CS does not produce the intense physical inflammatory tissue swelling caused by OC. Decontamination requires fresh air and cool water flushes.

---

7. Impact Weapons & Extended-Range Less-Lethal Munitions

Expandable Straight Baton (ASP / Monadnock)

The expandable steel baton is an intermediate impact weapon deployed to overcome active physical assaults through mechanical kinetic energy transfer.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                      BATON IMPACT TARGET CLASSIFICATION                  |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  PRIMARY (GREEN ZONE): Large Muscle Masses                               |
|  - Common peroneal nerve (outer thigh)                                   |
|  - Femoral nerve (inner thigh)                                           |
|  - Tibial nerve (calf)                                                   |
|  - Radial / Median nerve (forearms / upper arms)                         |
|  - GOAL: Motor dysfunction via fluid shock wave; NO bone fractures       |
|                                                                          |
|  SECONDARY (YELLOW ZONE): Skeletal Joints                                |
|  - Elbows, wrists, knees, ankles                                         |
|  - Justified only when muscle strikes fail against aggressive assault    |
|                                                                          |
|  PROHIBITED / DEADLY FORCE (RED ZONE): Vital Organs & Skeletal Structures|
|  - HEAD, NECK, THROAT, CERVICAL SPINE, SOLAR PLEXUS, GROIN               |
|  - Strikes here constitute DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE under A.R.S. § 13-410   |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

• Fluid Shock Wave Principle: Baton strikes are delivered using the maximum power portion of the weapon (the distal outer third of the shaft). The strike must be delivered with full follow-through to transmit a fluid shock wave into deep skeletal muscle tissue, temporarily incapacitating motor nerves and inducing motor dysfunction (temporary muscle dead-leg/charlie horse) without fracturing bones.
• Primary Strike Targets (Large Muscle Masses): Officers target the common peroneal nerve on the outer thigh, the femoral nerve on the inner thigh, the tibial nerve on the calf, and the biceps/triceps/radial groups on the upper arms.
• Secondary Targets (Joints): Knees, elbows, and wrists are secondary strike zones utilized only when violent, aggressive assaults cannot be controlled via muscle strikes.
• Prohibited Strike Targets (Deadly Physical Force): Deliberate baton strikes to the head, face, neck, throat, cervical spine, solar plexus, kidney region, or groin are classified as deadly physical force under Arizona law. A baton strike to the skull or neck can cause fatal intracranial hemorrhage, depressed skull fractures, or transected cervical vertebrae. Striking these areas is legally prohibited unless the officer possesses statutory justification to deploy deadly physical force under A.R.S. § 13-410.

Extended-Range Less-Lethal Munitions (40mm & 12-Gauge)

• 40mm Sponge / Foam Rounds: Fired from dedicated, brightly colored (blaze orange or safety yellow) launchers. These fin-stabilized polyurethane sponge projectiles deliver blunt impact kinetic energy (approximately 75–120 foot-pounds) at ranges of 15 to 45 feet, allowing officers to incapacitate violent subjects without closing the reactionary gap.
• 12-Gauge Drag-Stabilized Beanbag Rounds: Kevlar/fabric sacks filled with lead shot fired from dedicated, orange-stocked pump shotguns.
• Targeting Discipline: Extended-range impact munitions share the exact target classifications as batons: aim for large muscle masses (buttocks, thighs, lower abdomen). Targeting the head, neck, or chest is strictly prohibited unless deadly physical force is legally authorized.

---

8. High-Yield Exam Traps & Operational Application Scenario

High-Yield Exam Traps for Section 16.2

1. Graham Perspective: Force is evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, never with "20/20 hindsight."
2. Baton Head Strikes: An intentional baton strike to the head or neck is classified as deadly physical force, NOT intermediate force, and requires full compliance with A.R.S. § 13-410.
3. CEW Cardiac Capture: CEW probes must strictly avoid the chest/cardiac triangle (sternum) to eliminate the risk of inducing fatal ventricular fibrillation.
4. Hydraulic Needle Standoff: OC pepper spray discharged closer than 3 feet creates the risk of hydraulic needle corneal penetration.
5. A.R.S. § 13-409 Notice: Officers must state the purpose of the arrest or detention unless it is already known or impossible under the circumstances.
6. A.R.S. § 13-411 Crime Prevention: Justified deadly force to prevent enumerated violent crimes includes no duty to retreat.

Operational Application Scenario

Scenario: Officer Sanchez responds to a commercial burglary alarm at a retail store at 0200 hours. Upon arrival, Sanchez observes broken window glass and a male suspect emerging carrying two large bags of electronics. Sanchez draws his sidearm, illuminates the suspect with a weapon-mounted light, and orders: "Police! Stop and get on the ground!" The suspect drops the bags, turns, and sprints down an unlit alleyway into a dark residential neighborhood.

• Legal Analysis under Tennessee v. Garner and A.R.S. § 13-410: The suspect committed commercial burglary (a property crime, not a burglary of an occupied structure under § 13-411). The suspect displayed no weapons, made no verbal threats of lethal harm, and presents no immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or community. Under Tennessee v. Garner and A.R.S. § 13-410(B), deploying deadly physical force against this fleeing, non-dangerous felon is strictly unconstitutional and illegal.
• Tactical Selection & Escalation: Sanchez holsters his sidearm, radios the suspect's direction and description, and engages in a foot pursuit. Turning the corner into a fenced backyard, the suspect finds himself trapped by an 8-foot block wall. The suspect turns, bares his teeth, balls his fists, and lunges directly at Sanchez, throwing a violent punch toward Sanchez's jaw.
• Response under Graham and Continuum: The suspect has transitioned from passive flight to active physical aggression. Sanchez side-steps the punch, draws his CEW, aims for the suspect's lower abdomen and upper thigh (splitting the beltline), and fires. Both probes connect with a 14-inch spread. The suspect immediately experiences Neuro-Muscular Incapacitation (NMI) and collapses safely to the grass. Sanchez commands responding cover officers to handcuff the suspect, verifies no probes struck the chest or face, calls for medical decontamination, and documents the entire force progression under A.R.S. § 13-409.