According to Graham v. Connor, how should use of force be evaluated?

The evaluation of use of force in the context of Graham v. Connor focuses on the perspective of a reasonable officer. This landmark Supreme Court decision established that the appropriateness of an officer's use of force should be assessed from the viewpoint of an objective officer on the scene at the time of the incident, rather than judging it with hindsight or based on personal opinions about the situation.

This standard takes into consideration the circumstances faced by the officer, including the perceived threat level, the severity of the crime involved, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to officer safety or the safety of others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. This approach helps maintain a fair and consistent standard for evaluating officer conduct during encounters that require the use of force, acknowledging the high-pressure situations officers often face while simultaneously balancing the rights of individuals.

In contrast, evaluating use of force based on previous case law would not directly reflect the specific circumstances an officer faces, and comparing actions to those of an average citizen may not account for the unique training and responsibilities of law enforcement personnel. Lastly, viewing the situation through the officer's personal experience alone could introduce bias and obscure the objective scrutiny necessary for such evaluations.