Legal Standards Governing Police Use of Deadly Force

When Authority Crosses the Line: What Happens When Police Go Too Far

When police use deadly force, everything changes in an instant. Lives are lost. Families are left shattered. If you’re here, you may be carrying heartbreak, confusion, and more questions than answers. Did they have to pull the trigger? Was that really the only option? And who’s going to tell you the truth? This is where wrongful shooting attorneys step in, to help you push past silence and get clarity.

At Horn Wright, LLP, our attorneys work with families affected by police violence. We're focused on helping you understand what really happened, how the law applies, and whether deadly force was justified under state-specific rules.

While most states follow broad federal guidelines, laws in New York, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont can differ slightly on when police are allowed to use lethal force. In New York, for example, police can’t legally use deadly force just to stop someone from running. If you need someone who’ll fight for accountability, we’re here to walk that road with you.

Deadly Force Isn’t Supposed to Be Normal

Deadly force shouldn’t be part of a routine stop. Yet it happens far too often. Legally, police can only use it when they reasonably believe someone faces an immediate threat of serious harm. That’s the standard under Penal Law § 35.15.

But “reasonable” is slippery. Who decides what the officer should have seen in that moment?

The New York Police Department (NYPD) policy says deadly force requires three things:

• An immediate threat of serious injury or death
• No other option like de-escalation
• No safe way to retreat

In reality, these steps are often skipped. You’ve seen it in headlines or maybe firsthand. Excessive force cases keep surfacing, proving that what’s written down and what actually happens aren’t always the same. That’s exactly what wrongful shooting attorneys investigate.

Why Do We Even Have These Rules If No One Follows Them?

These rules are supposed to prevent abuse. Sometimes, they do. But too often, they’re ignored. Officers are trained to make smart decisions under pressure, but what happens when they don’t?

When fear or bias takes over, people get hurt. And when no one’s held accountable, the rules lose meaning. That’s when things like civil asset forfeiture happen as if they’re normal. Properties are taken without proof of a crime.

Those legal guardrails are there for a reason. But when ignored, people don’t just lose belongings. They lose trust in the entire system.

The same thing unfolds in illegal search and seizure cases where loopholes, unchecked authority, and damage fall hardest on those already at risk.

"Objective Reasonableness": Legal Shield or Loophole?

One of the most important and misunderstood legal tests is objective reasonableness. The Supreme Court created it in Graham v. Connor, and it’s how every police use-of-force decision is judged.

Sounds official, right? The law doesn’t ask if you think the force was justified. It asks what a “reasonable officer” would’ve done in that exact moment.

So even if a video shows someone being shot after running away or reaching for their ID, courts may still side with the officer if that officer says they felt threatened. That’s why cases like the Daniel Prude incident hit so hard. People saw the footage. They saw a man in distress. But still, the system struggled to hold anyone accountable.

And that’s the problem. This so-called “objective” test can feel anything but fair.

The "Immediate Threat" Excuse: How Officers Justify the Unjustifiable

Police can only use deadly force if there’s an immediate threat. That’s the rule. But “immediate threat” is a phrase that gets stretched way too far.

It might be a raised voice, a sudden movement, or even just someone running away. Officers often claim they had to react quickly, especially in chaotic moments like protest-related incidents.

Courts take into account several key details that could sway a ruling:

• Whether the person seemed armed
• If any warning was given
• Whether others nearby could’ve been hurt

These details, called the Graham factors, are supposed to provide clarity. But when stretched, they offer excuses instead of accountability.

If someone steals a phone and runs, should that end in gunfire? Absolutely not. And yet, you’ve probably seen stories where that’s exactly what happens.

In cases of racial profiling, officers often justify violence based on assumptions rather than real threats. The result is deadly force in situations that never should’ve escalated that far.

When the Rules Get Twisted

Sometimes, what starts as a small encounter turns deadly, and the rules meant to protect people are nowhere to be found.

Officers claim they feared for their lives, even when the person was unarmed. They say someone was a threat, even when the evidence says otherwise. And too often, courts agree.

This is how the system keeps repeating itself. Cases of excessive force pile up. Legal accountability stays out of reach. Even seasoned lawyers sometimes struggle to break through the pattern.

Independent reports show the same thing again and again: officers escalate instead of defusing. Mistakes get covered. Protocol gets ignored. And in case after case, police brutality goes unpunished.

What the Police Says in Manuals vs. What Happens in Real Life

NYPD officers are trained to de-escalate and use force only when necessary. But in real life, especially under pressure, training can fall apart. Fear and split-second decisions often take over.

By July 2025, New York recorded 303 shootings with injuries, down 14% from last year. But 356 people were still shot. That’s no small number.

Civil lawsuits don’t just reveal failure. They’re often the only way to hold departments accountable when training and internal reviews fall short.

Lawsuits: The Only Way the Truth Gets Out

You can’t always count on internal investigations to tell the full story. But lawsuits can be where real answers start coming out.

When you sue, you get access to:

• Officer body cam footage (if it exists)
• Contradictions between what’s said and what’s recorded
• Disciplinary histories that don’t match public statements
• Training materials that were never followed

These lawsuits expose patterns. And they put pressure on departments to finally make changes. That’s why knowing who can sue after a fatal shooting is so important.

It’s not just about money. It’s about telling the truth. Making the pain matter. Giving families some form of peace.

Filing a lawsuit helps push beyond silence and forces departments to answer for their actions.

Your Story Deserves to Be Heard And Fought For

If you’ve lost someone to police violence, you deserve more than vague reports and unanswered questions. You deserve the truth and a path forward. Wrongful shooting attorneys help families like yours challenge silence, push back against excuses, and uncover what really happened. If you’re ready to speak with someone who will take you seriously and fight for answers, contact Horn Wright, LLP today.