Deadly force

In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

The use of non-traditional weapons in an offensive manner, such as a baseball bat, sharp pencil, tire iron, or other, may also be considered deadly force.

A civilian's use of deadly force is generally justified if they reasonably believe that they or another person are in imminent danger of death or serious injury.

05-1631 (April 30, 2007)., the U.S. Supreme Court held that a police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatened the lives of innocent bystanders did not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious bodily injury or death.

[1] Traditionally, intentional contact between vehicles has been characterized as unlawful deadly force, though some U.S. federal appellate cases have mitigated this precedent.

1992)., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, although fatalities may result from intentional collisions between automobiles, such fatalities are infrequent and therefore unlawful deadly force should not be presumed to be the level of force applied in such incidents; the Adams case was subsequently called into question by Harris v Coweta County, 406 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.

2005)., which in turn was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Scott v. Harris case discussed above; the extent to which Adams can continue to be relied on is uncertain.

In the Donovan case, the suspect lost control of his motorcycle and became airborne, crashing into the officer's vehicle, which was parked as part of an intercepting roadblock.