Which statement correctly describes when deadly force is justified?

• A. A subject must be armed to justify deadly force.
• B. Deadly force may only be used after the officer is harmed.
• C. Deadly force may be used when there is an imminent threat of serious harm, regardless of whether the subject is armed.
• D. Deadly force is never justified in a pursuit.

Answer: (C)

Deadly force is justified when there is an imminent threat of serious harm. The key is immediacy and severity of the danger, not whether the person is armed. If a suspect’s actions, speed, or approach create an immediate risk of death or grave injury to you or others, using lethal force may be necessary to stop that threat, even if the suspect does not have a weapon. This reflects that the threat is ongoing and imminent, requiring a proportional and immediate response.

That makes the best choice fit because it centers on the real-time danger you face, rather than on possession of a weapon or waiting for harm to occur. The other ideas mischaracterize the scenario: being armed is not the sole determinant, harm does not have to have occurred yet for force to be justified, and a pursuit can involve deadly force only if there is an imminent risk of serious harm.