In recent years, the use of force by law enforcement officials has grown into a highly controversial topic in the U.S. As the Trump Administration continues to emphasize federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), numerous Americans question whether the use of force proves necessary and at what point it crosses the line between protection or an excuse to harm. While officers deserve protection in dangerous situations, the U.S. lacks clear rules that explicitly define exactly how and why officers should implement force.
Currently, law enforcement and officials follow objective reasonableness, which defends officers’ opinions at the moment when they decide to use force. Although this rule serves to protect enforcers from unfair punishment when choosing a violence-heavy decision, citizens commonly criticize the standard for its vagueness. Due to the broad wording, a diverse range of actions — from tasing to shooting — hold an identical explanation, even if the outcomes vary from life or death.
“I think it is crazy that there is no listed difference between life and death, basically, when using force. If the government has so many strict rules for the people, it should also have strict rules for its own officers and how they treat people. This system needs to be better to fix all of the issues happening in America right now,” magnet freshman Zoya Choudhry said.
Supporters of the current system argue that stricter rules could lead to officer harm. Officers face unpredictable threats daily, and hesitation, considering the proper use of force in fast-paced situations, would take valuable time, which could cost lives. Instead, clearer rules would not remove an officer’s ability to defend themself in a serious scenario. Instead, new additions to current standards would provide stronger guidance on when the use of force serves an appropriate purpose or when alternate options will work just as effectively.
Numerous other countries already apply national standards that focus on de-escalation and proportional response. Their officers still remain protected, but their systems place a stronger emphasis on preserving life and minimizing violence whenever possible. The U.S., on the other hand, allows each agency to create its own set of rules, which leads to inconsistency in the use of force country-wide.
Accountability also remains a major issue, as when an officer uses deadly force, the government commonly handles investigations internally and takes months or even years to proceed and resolve. This system seems selective and unfair, especially for the public, as force from officers affects the common people the strongest. Even when courts eventually clear officers, communities commonly feel left with unanswered questions.
“I truly hate how much force has been used unnecessarily recently, and I hate that I can’t do anything about it. ICE right now should not be detaining people or using violence without a list or valid reasoning, and they are starting to remind me of another similar group from the past. The saying history repeats itself is wrong; it just follows a pattern,” Choudhry said.
Clearer use of force rules would remove this unnecessary violence that people currently see all over the country. If national standards required independent investigations, public reports and higher levels of training on calming situations, citizens would hold higher trust in officers and ensure every person feels safe in their country. Safety should apply to all citizens, not just those in uniform, and when the rules prove unclear, both officers and civilians face a higher risk.
Force may act as necessary in certain situations, but it should never confuse, officials covering up force or easily excusing unnecessary force. Law enforcement will always utilize the ability to use force in moments of real danger, but without clear boundaries, that power can shift from protection to permission. The question stands as not whether force should exist but instead how specifically the government should define it. Until the U.S. chooses clarity in these rules over the convenience of using harm whenever, violence will remain prominent, as well as its consequences.
