The Police Foundation study (1977) of the use of lethal force found that were no consistent policies or regulation governing use of lethal force across departments. Some had no policies at all and others deliberately kept them very vague fearing lawsuits. The idea being that more specific policies make it easier to find that an officer acted outside of them and therefore at fault.

One of their recommendations was that departments have very specific guidelines for the use of lethal force to minimize the number of "assessments" an officer needs to make before deciding if lethal force is necessary. And they recommended there only be two reasons to use lethal force: defense of self or others in the face of immediate threat of death or serious injury; and apprehend armed and dangerous suspect if other means are too dangerous and if no threat to bystanders. These are common practices across departments today. Can guidelines become too specific? Officers need to be able to assess fluid and rapidly changing situations. Could guidelines get so specific that they might increase the danger to officers? Also, are there any other circumstances that you can think of in which use of deadly force could be recommended?