9.4 Deadly Force and Post-Incident Duties

Deadly Force Decisions

Deadly force is defined in PC 9.01(3) as force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury. TCOLE BPOC Chapters 28 and 31 connect deadly force to defense of person, defense of a third person, arrest and search, and immediate threats. The test focus is reasonableness under the facts, not fear in the abstract or the seriousness of the underlying crime.

Chapter 31 states that peace officers may use deadly force to protect themselves or others when, and to the degree, they reasonably believe an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury exists. Chapter 28 asks students to consider whether deadly force can be avoided without risk of injury or death to the officer or others. Agency policy and personal conscience also bear on the decision, but they never expand authority beyond what the law allows.

Worked scenario. A burglary suspect runs from a building with a backpack, ignores commands, and shows no visible weapon. Deadly force is not justified by the flight alone — that is the holding of Tennessee v. Garner. If the facts change and the suspect turns with a firearm toward an officer or a bystander, the immediate-threat analysis changes and deadly force may become justified. The correct exam answer follows the facts as they evolve and reassesses the level of threat at every moment.

Chapter 31 also connects deadly force to empty-hand techniques, control weapons, chemical and electrical devices, firearms, vehicles, and other tools. This is an exam warning: a technique or tool can become deadly force based on how it is used, where it is targeted, and the foreseeable injury. A baton strike intentionally directed to the head, throat, or spine is treated as deadly force, while a controlled strike to an approved large-muscle target is not. The classification follows the application, not the device.

Post-incident duties are tested as process and policy awareness. Chapter 28 identifies typical procedures after an officer-involved shooting and stresses that each department has its own procedures. Officers should know their policy, preserve evidence as directed, follow supervisory instructions, and understand that many departments separate the administrative investigation from the criminal investigation so the two do not contaminate each other.

Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) matters because compelled administrative answers cannot later be used against the officer in a criminal case. If a statement is compelled under threat of job loss, it is protected from criminal use; if the statement is sought for a criminal prosecution, Miranda and Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.22 issues may arise. The correct exam answer does not claim Garrity prevents all questioning — it bars criminal use of compelled statements under the relevant conditions.

Two Investigations, One Incident

An officer-involved shooting typically triggers parallel tracks that must stay separate:

Exam answers should reflect that the officer cooperates with evidence preservation, follows supervisory direction, and understands that a compelled administrative interview cannot feed the criminal case. Common policy steps after a shooting include securing the scene, separating involved and witness officers, providing medical aid, documenting the round count and weapon condition where directed, and notifying the chain of command and required oversight bodies.

Threat Has Ended — Now What

TCOLE stresses the duty to render aid and the duty to reassess. Once a subject is no longer an immediate threat — disarmed, restrained, or incapacitated — the justification for force collapses and the officer must transition to medical care and custody. Continuing to strike, or leaving a restrained subject in a position that risks positional asphyxia, converts a justified use of force into an unjustified one. The correct answer always returns to a lower option, and to aid, the moment the threat ends.

Exam trap. Deadly force is not justified merely because an offense is serious, the person is fleeing, or the officer is angry or insulted. The best answer identifies the immediate threat, legal authority, bystander risk, available alternatives, and policy, and recognizes the duty to reassess and return to verbal strategy once the threat ends and safety permits.