In what situations is the use of lethal force unlawful under Act 235?

The reason why the use of lethal force is considered unlawful in situations where there is no immediate threat or available alternatives is rooted in the principles of proportionality and necessity that govern the use of force. Act 235 mandates that lethal force should only be employed when it is absolutely necessary to prevent imminent harm, such as serious bodily injury or death.

When there is no immediate threat, the justification for the use of deadly force diminishes significantly. Individuals are expected to seek alternatives and de-escalate situations whenever possible before resorting to lethal means. This standard is in place to protect not only the individual employing the force but also the general public, ensuring that lethal force is only a last resort in genuinely life-threatening scenarios.

In contrast, situations involving immediate threats or personal feelings of being threatened do not automatically justify lethal force; they require careful assessment of the circumstances. Thus, the emphasis on immediate threat and viable alternatives under Act 235 is critical to maintaining lawful and responsible use of lethal force.