What is a common legal justification for the use of force in arrest situations?

The justification for using force in arrest situations often hinges on the idea that it must be necessary to prevent escape or harm. This principle is grounded in the necessity of ensuring public safety and the safety of law enforcement personnel. When an officer is faced with a situation where a suspect poses an imminent threat to themselves, to the officer, or to others, the use of force is viewed as justified to control the situation effectively and ensure safe apprehension.

This rationale supports the idea that all potential options for de-escalation have been considered and that force is only employed when absolutely required to mitigate a threat or secure a compliant arrest. In practice, this means that if an individual is actively resisting arrest or poses a threat of violence, the use of force becomes not just an option, but a necessity to protect everyone involved.

In contrast, some other options may impose unnecessary limitations that could potentially hinder an officer's ability to act effectively in urgent situations. For instance, saying that force must only be used if a suspect is armed does not account for scenarios in which a suspect unarmed may still pose a significant threat. Similarly, asserting that force should be used only when safety is guaranteed might lead to inaction during critical moments, as there are rarely guarantees of safety