By Michael Phillips | People’s Law Review
Public debate over police use of force often turns on emotion, video clips, and competing narratives. Courts, however, approach these cases very differently. They rely on specific legal standards that focus on reasonableness, immediacy, and proportionality, not hindsight or public reaction.
Recent events in Minneapolis have renewed attention on one of the most difficult questions in use-of-force law: when does a vehicle constitute an imminent threat justifying deadly force?
This article explains how courts analyze that question under U.S. law.
Editor’s Note:
This article explains legal standards used by courts. It does not determine the facts of any specific incident, which remain subject to investigation and judicial review.
The Legal Importance of “Imminent Threat”
In both self-defense and defense-of-others cases, the central legal issue is imminent threat. Courts ask whether an officer reasonably believed that serious harm was immediate and unavoidable at the moment force was used.
Importantly, the law does not require officers to wait until they are struck, shot, or killed before acting. If an officer reasonably perceives that a suspect is about to cause serious injury or death, the use of force may be legally justified—even if the threat has not yet fully materialized.
This principle reflects the realities of law enforcement decision-making. Officers often have seconds, not minutes, to interpret rapidly evolving situations under stress and uncertainty.
Vehicles and Use of Force
A vehicle is not inherently a weapon. However, courts have repeatedly recognized that a vehicle can become a deadly weapon depending on how it is used.
When evaluating vehicle-related use-of-force cases, courts examine factors such as:
- The vehicle’s speed and direction
- The officer’s proximity to the vehicle
- Whether the officer had a realistic ability to move out of harm’s way
- The presence of bystanders or other officers
- Whether the driver ignored commands or acted aggressively
The legal question is not whether the vehicle ultimately caused harm, but whether a reasonable officer could believe that it posed an immediate danger at that moment.
Deadly Force and Constitutional Limits
The Supreme Court has placed clear limits on when deadly force may be used. Deadly force is constitutionally justified only when an officer has probable cause to believe a suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others.
This means deadly force cannot be used simply to stop someone from fleeing. If a suspect is unarmed and attempting to escape without threatening others, deadly force is generally unconstitutional.
However, if a fleeing suspect’s actions—such as using a vehicle in a way that threatens lives—create an immediate risk, courts may view deadly force differently. The analysis depends on danger, not movement.
The “Objective Reasonableness” Standard
Courts evaluate police use of force under what is known as the objective reasonableness standard. This standard requires judges and juries to view the incident from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, considering the facts known at the time.
Crucially, courts are instructed not to judge these decisions with the benefit of hindsight. Video footage, witness statements, and expert analysis may inform the inquiry, but they do not replace the core legal question:
Was the officer’s perception of imminent danger reasonable at that moment?
Proportionality Still Matters
Even when an imminent threat exists, courts examine whether the level of force used was proportional to that threat. An officer’s response must be appropriate to the severity and immediacy of the danger faced.
If evidence shows that a vehicle was stationary, moving away, or easily avoidable, courts may find that deadly force was excessive. Conversely, if an officer reasonably believed the vehicle posed an immediate and lethal threat, deadly force may be deemed lawful.
Each case turns on its specific facts.
Why These Cases Are Often Contested
Vehicle-related use-of-force cases are among the most controversial because they involve:
- Extremely short decision windows
- High stress and physiological effects
- Irreversible outcomes
- Competing interpretations of video evidence
The law attempts to balance public safety, officer safety, and constitutional rights by focusing on reasonableness under pressure, not perfect decision-making.
The Role of Accountability
Legal standards protecting reasonable self-defense do not eliminate accountability. Officers are required to document their perceptions, actions, and decision-making. Investigations and court proceedings exist precisely to determine whether legal thresholds were met.
Understanding the legal framework does not mean endorsing any particular outcome. It means recognizing how courts assess responsibility within constitutional limits.
Conclusion
When courts evaluate police use of force involving vehicles, they do not ask whether tragedy occurred. They ask whether an officer reasonably perceived an imminent threat and responded proportionally in that moment.
These standards are not designed to excuse misconduct or ignore community harm. They exist to ensure that judgments are grounded in law rather than emotion, hindsight, or political pressure.
For the public to engage meaningfully in discussions about policing and accountability, it is essential to understand how the law actually works—especially in cases where seconds matter and outcomes are irreversible.
The People's Law Review 