The statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to
(1) defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or
(2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury,
and, if feasible, the officer has given warning of his or her intent to use deadly physical force.
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR USING DEADLY FORCE
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)). Thus, our statutory standards for using deadly force seem to parallel the federal constitutional standards.
The Court has said that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application.” “[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight….” Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” The question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them “(Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396, 397 (1989)).
To me, nothing has changed other than the possible use of robotic or even aerial unmanned drones to be used as needed.
Deadly force is deadly force. It may, and in all likelihood will, end your existence. What we are debating is whether an explosive device (robotics are not relevant) is "extreme." If it is, then where does "conventional" and "reasonable" deadly force come into the definition? What are the thresholds?
Is reasonable deadly force really any different than extreme deadly force? Both can, and will probably, stop the threat permanently. Hence the adjective "deadly". Does there need to be some chance of survival for it to not be extreme? Have we grown so accustomed to movies that we believe there is such a thing as "humane use of lethal violence"?
We see beheading videos (if you haven't, you need to watch at least one). We often call these methods extreme, yet that is a centuries old and extremely low tech method of execution. In it's day, beheadings were thought more humane than other methods.
I think the issue here is not oversight, or government restraint, or any slippery slope use of drones in a gun confiscation debacle. It's about how comfortable we are as humans at the thought of certain types of deadly force being used on ourselves
There are international laws restricting use of chemical, biological and inhumane weapons. Yet, how many movies and documentary footage from WWII show flame throwers being used against people in bunkers and tanks? I think fire is a pretty horrible way to die. I'd almost rather be blown up!
Don't examine WHAT you think should be legal. Examine WHY you think one form of death should be legal and why another should be either banned or used in only extreme situations. Of course, the tinfoil hats will always err on the side of "you can't trust any LE agency to avoid calling every incident "extreme." Let's go with the reasonable and rational definitions for the sake of discussion. Otherwise, if we start believing Cops always escalate to the highest level of force without sufficient cause, then all traffic stops would end in shootings, and we know that's not happening!