Homicide Studies Special Issue on Police Use of Deadly Force

The police have enormous power and responsibility in relation to the use of deadly force. Continuing high-profile events involving lethal force illustrate the importance of this crucial decision and how such force, even if legally justified, can spark outcry among groups and communities that believe officers could—and should—have resolved the situations without resorting to lethal force. For this special issue I sought manuscripts that explore the nature of this crucial decision from any number of perspectives (e.g., officers, police leaders, individuals, academics, communities, etc.) and drawing on any number of approaches (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, theoretical, etc.). Researchers were encouraged to be innovative in their research questions and methodology, as I envisioned the opportunity to push the boundaries in new and inventive ways to shed light on this crucial issue. The end result is the nine issues appearing in this issue.

We begin with a systematic review of the deadly force literature over the most recently completed decade (2011–2020) by Oramas Mora, Terrill, and Foster. The article is designed to offer a high-level broad perspective into the most recently completed decade (2011–2020) of research focusing mainly on how often and why the police use such force. The authors find, not surprisingly given the continued public discourse surrounding lethal force, that the number of research works has risen substantially over this time period. Moreover, the body of research during this period indicates that citizen possession of a weapon continues to be a consistent risk factor. Further, while many of the studies sought to examine a potential link between race and lethal force, the findings remain mixed.

In the second and third articles, the authors seek to glean an understanding from officers in terms of their views surrounding use of force, as well as firearm related danger. Pickering and Klinger draw on Binder and Scharf’s model of deadly force decision-making in examining the interactional nature of police-citizen encounters. Their methodological approach is beneficial in relation to interviewing officers about why they did or did not shoot in varying situations. A number of key findings emerge from the study, including an understanding of group dynamics, social roles, and cognition. Further, they offer direction for which future researchers would be wise to consider. Terrill and Somers’ study centers on understanding how officers view danger in specific types of situations involving suspects who display varying levels of noncompliance, as well as what contextual factors are most relevant. The authors find officers do not view all suspects with a firearm as similarly dangerous, but rather distinguish the level of dangerousness based on the form of noncompliance. Such a finding is important in the sense that officers discern danger based on suspect actions not simply because they have a firearm.

Krishanna Prince and Sun, in the fourth article, begin by aptly noting that there has been little research examining citizen behavior, mental illness, and race and ethnicity in relation to deadly force. Using data drawn from a number of different sources, they pose the question: Are race and ethnicity associated with the likelihood of resistance among people with mental illness in their deadly encounters with the police? Although they did not identify a consistent connection between race/ethnicity and varying forms of resistance in fatal killings of citizen experiencing signs of mental illness, they elaborate on the nuance of their findings and offer direction for future researchers.

In the fifth article, Keller, Caplan, and Kennedy examine the role of place and the “built” environment on officer involved shootings (fatal and non-fatal) in Philadelphia, PA. Similar to prior research, the authors find that violent crime is a salient predictor of officer involved shootings. However, they also report that the “built environment indirectly facilitates OIS events by attracting and generating opportunities for gun-related crime which police respond to and act on.” Hanink, Renner, and Bates, in the sixth article, apply a relatively different approach to the topic at hand, in which they assess the potential relationship between police use of deadly force and access to trauma centers using publicly available data from 11 large urban police agencies. Despite the intuitive appeal that times matters, the authors fail to find a connection upon controlling for a number of situationally based factors. The authors note that prevention is vitally important as opposed to seeking to reduce fatalities after the fact. They also advise caution as to over-generalizing the findings, as they may differ in rural area where trauma centers are more spatially distanced.

In article seven, Fridell and Marier turn to examining community views of officer use of force. More directly, they delve into the differing views the public and police often have in relation to whether deadly force incidents are improper or unlawful. Referencing this difference within the realm of a “reasonableness divide” the authors consider the role that extra-legal factors may play when assessing the appropriateness of force usage. Their findings show that citizen race and the seriousness of the precipitating event to the force usage are associated with views toward the propriety of force. The authors go on to detail a number of policy and research implications.

The final two articles by Porter, as well as Rappert, Odang, De Paepe, Dymond, Easton, and Probert, bring an international perspective to the special issue. Using data from Australia, Porter draws on Binder and Scharf’s analytical model (as did Pickering and Klinger in this issue) and calculates “proximity coefficients” seeking to better understand the evolving nature of police-citizen encounters and circumstances leading to fatal shootings. Not surprisingly, she finds that suspects firing at, and advancing toward, officers are key factors in deadly force outcomes. In the final article, Rappert and colleagues examine the potential of a global lethal force monitor that would allow for international comparisons. They argue that such comparisons would be beneficial in a number of ways (i.e., normative, programmatic, analytical). Their vision for a global monitor is grounded within three key areas: national legal frameworks, how force is recorded and reported, and the contextual nature of force usage. Certainly, the complexities and challenges that would come with such an initiative are substantial, and for which the authors discuss.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all the authors for their contributions to this special issue. I saw the issue as an opportunity to examine lethal force from a broader set of ideas and methods rather than a narrow set. And a as result, it is important to keep in mind that while some of the pieces fit the “template” of a journal article, not all do—which was intentional.