Police Use of force should be guided by the principles of legality, necessity, proportion, precaution and non-discrimination. These are fundamental principles of international human rights law that should bind all states. But they are not the norms in the #USA. #ICantBreath
The use of lethal force in the US is heavily decentralised. There is no federal law. It is regulated at State and municipal level and does not meet international standards which require that lethal force be the exception and only when strictly necessary to protect life.
In the US police can use lethal force where it is ‘reasonable’ on the basis of the severity of the crime at issue, if there is an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others, if he/she is resisting arrest, if there is probable cause of serious physical harm.
The US "reasonable" test is strikingly different from that of necessity and proportionality. It does not distinguish between lethal and non-lethal force. It does not require that non-violent means be exhausted. is vague. It gives far too much discretion to officers.
In Court, the law means that the Officers' views take precedence; the judgement relies heavily on their assessment. The vast majority of police killings end up with no guilty sentence when they reach the Court, which is often not the case.
Supreme Court Judge Justice Sonia Sotomayer has criticised the reasonableness standard. In Mullinex v. Luna she wrote that it sanctions a “shoot first, think later’ approach to policing. Add to it the historical and systemic discrimination against African and native Americans.
The outcome is disproportionate killing of blacks, with the law and the courts largely enshrining and legitimising these policing practices and the killings. #ICantBreath
