What defines deadly force compared to less-lethal force?

• A. Less-lethal forces always injure more slowly
• B. Deadly force creates a substantial risk of death or serious injury; less-lethal aims to neutralize a threat with lower risk
• C. Less-lethal force can cause greater injury than deadly force
• D. Deadly force always results in capture

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that deadly force is defined by the risk it poses to life and serious bodily harm, not by what actually happens in a given moment. Deadly force creates a substantial risk of death or serious injury; it’s considered appropriate only when there is an imminent threat of death or serious harm and no reasonable alternative to stop that threat. Less-lethal force is used to neutralize a threat with a lower risk to life or serious injury, aiming to stop the danger while preserving life as much as possible.

This distinction matters because it guides officers to use the least amount of force needed to protect lives. For example, firearms are considered deadly force due to their high risk of fatal harm, whereas tools like chemical irritants or batons are intended to be less-lethal options.

The other statements don’t fit this definition because they focus on outcomes that aren’t the defining factor. Less-lethal tools do not inherently injure more slowly; the speed or magnitude of injury isn’t what separates deadly from less-lethal. It’s about the potential to cause death or serious harm. Likewise, it’s not accurate to say less-lethal can cause greater injury than deadly force—the label is about risk, not the total amount of harm that could occur. And deadly force does not guarantee capture; its purpose is to stop a threat, which may or may not result in capture.