Final answer:
The use of deadly force in apprehending criminals is permitted when law enforcement has reasonable belief of imminent danger to life. Probable cause is required, and the decision is highly scrutinized, especially in cases involving unarmed individuals or potential racial bias.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of when the apprehension or arrest of a criminal justifies the use of deadly force is complex and highly dependent on the specific circumstances and the jurisdiction. Generally, law enforcement officers are authorized to use deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent imminent danger to their life or the lives of others. This decision must be made in the context of the situation, balancing the need for force against the threat presented.
For example, in scenarios where police officers have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime, as established in Terry v. Ohio, they are entitled to stop and frisk the suspect for weapons if they also suspect that the person is armed and dangerous.
However, the use of deadly force is scrutinized under the concept of 'probable cause', which requires a higher threshold of evidence than reasonable suspicion. This means that a lethal outcome, such as the shooting of an unarmed person, would likely require a showing that the officer had probable cause to believe that their life or the lives of others was in immediate danger. In situations where racial profiling or institutional bias may be involved, the legitimacy of the use of deadly force becomes a subject of intense public scrutiny and legal debate.
Contextual factors, public opinion, and the legal system influence the outcome of cases involving deadly force. This may include considerations such as whether race played a role in the encounter or if societal fears and stereotypes contributed to the decision to use force. The Fifth Amendment also plays a role in ensuring that individuals are not deprived of life or liberty without due process of law.