According to the Fourth Amendment, how is the use of deadly force determined?

The determination of the use of deadly force under the Fourth Amendment hinges on the concept of "reasonableness," which is assessed through the lens of what a typical officer in similar circumstances would consider appropriate. This reasoning is grounded in the Supreme Court’s decision in cases such as Graham v. Connor, which established that the use of force must be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.

The courts analyze several factors to ascertain whether the use of deadly force was justified, including the immediate threat to the officer's safety or the safety of others, the severity of the crime at issue, and whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee. The evaluation is objective and considers the totality of circumstances surrounding the incident.

In contrast, relying solely on individual officer discretion could lead to inconsistent applications of force, as personal biases or judgment errors may influence decisions without standardized criteria. Additionally, while departmental policies provide important frameworks for officers, the ultimate legal scrutiny falls to the courts rather than being strictly governed by internal guidelines. Public opinion at the scene may reflect community sentiment, but it does not result in legal standards governing the use of force. Thus, the correct answer revolves around the legal standard of "reasonableness" assessed by courts,