Final answer:
A threat using a weapon display does not amount to deadly force if intended to create an apprehension of force used when necessary. Police actions must balance legal restrictions and safety needs, and force should be proportional to the threat.
Step-by-step explanation:
A threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by displaying a weapon does NOT constitute the use of deadly force as long as the actor's (officer) purpose is to create an apprehension that deadly force will be used if necessary. This principle is to maintain an effective balance between law enforcement and the use of force. Situations where law enforcement officers must make split-second decisions can lead to serious consequences, and officers must understand the legal thresholds and restraints on the use of deadly force. In the provided scenario, though the police have evidence that suspects are guilty of carrying an unlawful weapon, without direct evidence of armed robbery, the use of deadly force may not be justifiable. The principle from Terry v. Ohio suggests that it's permissible for police to stop and frisk suspects believed to be armed and dangerous to ensure officer safety and public protection. However, the extent of force used must always be proportionate to the threat presented, and the mere display of a weapon to create apprehension does not equate to using deadly force.