The other day, my 12-year-old son asked me if police officers are allowed to kill criminals at all costs. This honestly got me thinking. So today, I digress for a moment and discuss this legal issue instead of the usual political topics I cover.

Here it goes.

According to the Supreme Court, a police officer who killed another can justify his action by invoking “self-defense” and/or “performance of duty.” The former is based on the principle of self-preservation from mortal harm and is predicated upon unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, such as when he, for instance, attempts to shoot the officer.

With regard to the performance of duty, it is based on the lawful exercise of the right of office, and the injury done is a necessary consequence of such exercise. As discussed in one case, this happens when, for example, the victim grabbed the M-16 of the police officer and proceeded to escape.

Although there was no attempt against the life of the police officer or any civilian, as the victim was just escaping, the officer was acquitted because it was his duty to prevent him from escaping.

In another case, a fugitive was armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance. The policeman demanded his surrender, but instead, the fugitive lunged at the policeman with his bamboo lance. The policeman dodged, and the fugitive ran away, still holding the bamboo lance.

The policeman pursued him and again fired his revolver, hitting and killing him. The Court acquitted the policeman since the killing was done in the fulfillment of duty. Note that there was no longer unlawful aggression here.

Anyway, it should be noted that “performance of duty” is available only to a police officer and not to a private individual, who can justify his action only by invoking self-defense.

Be that as it may, police officers are expected to use reasonable force.

The PNP Operations Manual provides that in responding to an incident, the police officer must first issue a verbal warning before he can use force.

When the suspect is violent or threatening, a more extreme but non-deadly measure can be used, such as a baton or truncheon, pepper spray, stun gun, and other non-lethal weapons to bring the suspect under control or effect an arrest.

Interestingly, the police officer is given “sound discretion” in employing reasonable force. This is where trouble comes in. Since he holds the gun, he can easily come up with fabricated excuses to use violence.

What compounds the problem is that, unlike in the US, for instance, our officers are not regularly armed with non-lethal weapons and are not adequately trained to handle crises.

There lies the rub.