Deadly force is justified only when there is what type of threat?

• A. A minor property crime
• B. An imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to self or others
• C. A suspect fleeing on foot
• D. A loud verbal confrontation

Answer: (B)

The main concept being tested is that deadly force is justified only when there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to self or others. This requirement ties lethal action to an immediate and unavoidable danger, meaning less-than-lethal options or non-threatening situations don’t warrant using deadly force.

Why this is the best answer: the condition described—an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to self or others—captures the exact danger level that justifies lethal measures. In practice, officers must believe that harm is about to occur and that there is no reasonable alternative to stop it, making the force proportionate to the threat and necessary.

Why the other scenarios don’t fit: a minor property crime does not present a threat of death or serious harm. Pursuing a suspect on foot may create risk, but without an imminent deadly threat, deadly force isn’t automatically justified. A loud verbal confrontation likewise does not constitute an imminent threat of lethal harm.

So, the only scenario that justifies deadly force is when there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to self or others.