Justifiable Homicide by a Peace Officer: When Deadly Force Is Legal Under California Law
Peace officers in California often face high-pressure situations requiring quick decisions about the use of force. The law provides clear guidance on when a peace officer’s use of deadly force is legally justified, potentially protecting the officer from charges such as murder or manslaughter.
When Deadly Force by Police Is Justified
For a peace officer—or someone acting under a peace officer’s direction—to lawfully use deadly force, two main criteria must be met:
What Counts as an Imminent Threat?
An “imminent threat” refers to an urgent, immediate risk—not a potential future danger. The law does not permit deadly force to prevent harm that might happen later. Deadly force includes any action likely to cause serious injury or death, such as firing a weapon, and must only be used when no safer alternatives are available.
Objective Reasonableness: What Would Another Officer Do?
The law evaluates the use of deadly force based on what would have been considered objectively reasonable by another officer with similar training under the same circumstances. This assessment considers factors such as:
Judgment is made without hindsight; officers are not judged based on facts learned after the fact, but based on what they knew and perceived in the moment.
No Duty to Retreat
California law affirms that peace officers have no legal obligation to retreat when faced with resistance or threats during an arrest. Officers are permitted to stand their ground and use reasonable force necessary to protect themselves or others, provided the force is justified under the law.
The Prosecution Must Prove Excessive Force
When self-defense or the justification for the use of deadly force is raised, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer’s use of force was unlawful. If they fail to meet this burden, the officer must be acquitted.
Who Decides If the Defendant Was a Peace Officer?
If the status of the defendant as a peace officer is in dispute, the jury decides this issue. While the court can provide the legal definition, the jury must determine whether the individual was acting as a peace officer under the law.
Why This Matters
Recent changes to California law, including revisions to Penal Code §835a, emphasize higher accountability for law enforcement officers. However, CALCRIM 507 ensures that officers who act within the legal boundaries of self-defense and lawful duty are protected from criminal liability when facing real and immediate danger.
Understanding when the use of deadly force is justified is crucial—especially for officers who may face legal challenges after making life-or-death decisions in the line of duty.
About Molly Northrup
Molly Northrup plays a pivotal role at the Law Office of Daniel Horowitz, bringing unmatched depth in legal analysis, case development, and courtroom strategy. With a background in linguistics, an MBA from a top-tier international business school, and years of experience navigating complex criminal and civil litigation, Molly is a trusted legal mind clients turn to in their most critical moments.
Her work spans high-profile trials, sensitive investigations, and intricate legal disputes—where her judgment, precision, and strategic instincts have helped drive successful outcomes time and again.
If your case requires elite-level representation with a rigorous, detail-driven approach, contact the Law Office of Daniel Horowitz and benefit from the leadership of a legal team anchored by professionals like Molly and Daniel.
