Use of Force Law: Graham v. Connor Explained

A force decision gets made in under two seconds and then gets examined for two years. That asymmetry is the central reality of the security profession, and the only thing that closes the gap between a defensible action and a career ending one is whether the person involved understood the legal framework before the encounter, not after the lawyers showed up.

Objective Reasonableness Is the Whole Ballgame

The foundational standard in American use of force law comes from Graham v. Connor, decided by the Supreme Court in 1989. The Court held that force is judged under the Fourth Amendment by a standard of objective reasonableness. That means the question is not whether the officer had good intentions, and not whether a calmer choice existed in hindsight. The question is whether a reasonable person, standing in the same position with the same information, would have considered the force reasonable at that moment.

Graham gave us three factors that still anchor every credible analysis. First, the severity of the situation at hand. Second, whether the subject posed an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others. Third, whether the subject was actively resisting or attempting to flee. These factors are weighed together, under what the Court called the totality of the circumstances, and they are evaluated from the perspective of someone on the scene rather than someone reviewing video from a quiet office.

Deadly Force Has Its Own Rule

Tennessee v. Garner, decided in 1985, set the boundary for deadly force. The Court rejected the old idea that deadly force could be used simply to stop a fleeing suspect. Under Garner, deadly force to prevent escape is only justified when there is a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Stopping a person from running is not, by itself, a reason to use lethal means. This distinction matters enormously in training, because it forces a clean separation between the desire to control a situation and the legal authority to end a life.

Private Security Is Not the Police

Here is where many practitioners get into trouble. Most private security personnel do not carry the authority of sworn law enforcement. They generally operate under the same legal footing as any private citizen, augmented by the property rights of the client whose premises they protect. They are not performing state action in most cases, which changes the constitutional analysis, but it does not lower the stakes. Civil liability, criminal exposure, and the contractual limits of the post all apply. Where an officer holds a special police commission or similar status, the analysis shifts and color of law concerns enter the picture. Knowing exactly which category applies on a given assignment is not a nicety. It is the difference between lawful action and assault.

The Continuum Is a Teaching Model, Not a Staircase

The force continuum, which moves from presence to verbal direction to empty hand control to less lethal tools and finally to lethal force, is one of the most useful training devices in the field. It is also one of the most misunderstood. The continuum is not a set of stairs that must be climbed one at a time. A subject who presents a deadly threat does not require the officer to try a stern voice first. The point of the model is proportionality and reasonableness, not rigid sequence. Good training uses it to build judgment, not to install a checklist.

The Report Is the Second Half of the Force

An action that cannot be articulated cannot be defended. The use of force report is not paperwork that follows the event. It is part of the event. The officer who can clearly explain what they perceived, what threat indicators they observed, and why each level of force was reasonable in that instant has done the work that protects them, their employer, and the public. Vague reports built on conclusions rather than observations are how good decisions get treated like bad ones.

Force is not about winning a physical contest. It is about making a lawful, reasonable, and explainable choice under pressure, and then being able to stand behind it.

What a Defensible Force Report Contains

The report is where a lawful decision either survives review or quietly falls apart. Every element below exists because its absence is what opposing counsel reaches for first:

What was known before acting, stated as the information available at that moment, since reasonableness is judged on that basis and not on what emerged later.
The specific behavior observed, described objectively. Aggressive is a conclusion; clenched fists, closed distance, and a refusal to comply with three verbal directions are observations.
The severity of the situation being addressed, because the justification for force scales with what was at stake.
Whether the subject presented an immediate threat, to whom, and what made it immediate rather than potential.
Whether the subject was actively resisting or attempting to flee, described by conduct rather than by label.
Warnings or commands given, how many times, and what the response was.
Alternatives considered and why they were rejected, including whether disengagement was available.
The force actually used, described precisely in technique, duration, and number of applications, without softening language.
When force stopped and what caused it to stop, which is frequently the most scrutinized sentence in the entire document.
Injuries observed, medical aid offered or rendered, and the time it was requested.
Witnesses, video sources, and physical evidence, identified while they still exist.
Notifications made, to whom, and when.

Write it the same day. Memory degrades quickly, and a report written a week later reads like reconstruction even when it is accurate.

Common Questions

What standard applies to private security officers?

Generally state law governing private persons, together with the terms of the client contract and company policy, rather than the constitutional standard that governs sworn law enforcement. Officers who train on police material without that distinction sometimes carry assumptions about authority that do not survive a courtroom. None of this is legal advice, and jurisdiction specific questions belong with counsel.

What does objective reasonableness mean in practice?

That the decision is assessed from the perspective of a reasonable officer facing the same circumstances, judged on the information available at the time and without the clarity of hindsight. It is a test about the moment of decision, not about the outcome.

Is the force continuum legally binding?

No. The continuum is a teaching device for explaining proportionality. It does not require climbing rungs in order, and treating it as a staircase produces both bad training and bad testimony. The legal test remains reasonableness.

Why does documentation carry so much weight?

Because the incident will be evaluated months or years later by people who were not present, using the written record as the primary account. An entirely lawful use of force with a thin report is far more difficult to defend than a well documented one.

Reference Material: Monitor The Situation; Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989); Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985); the use of force resources published by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and ASIS International; and the private security statutes of the state in which the post operates, which control licensing and authority.

Somebody’s gotta do it. Might as well be us.

Mahalos.

About the Author

Kawika Rogers is Managing Partner at Eight Point Solutions LLC, a veteran-led defense consulting and training firm based in Maryland. He served as an Infantry Team Leader in the United States Marine Corps, then directed the Field Training Officer program and served as an Armorer for Triple Canopy at Camp Arifjan and Camp Buehring in support of Operation Inherent Resolve. He has also served in an advisory and operational capacity in Eastern Europe. Rogers holds over 15 instructor certifications in firearms, defensive tactics, and emergency medicine, and studied International Relations and Global Security at American Military University.

Eight Point Solutions LLC 7404 Executive Place, 5th Floor, Suite L-17, Lanham, MD 20706 // rogers@eightpointsolutions.com // eightpointsolutions.com SDVOSB // eightpointsolutions.app // eightpointsolutions-tech.com // SAM UEI: EY34ARER2TD9

Use of Force: The Legal Architecture Behind Every Decision