What term describes the appropriate evaluation of an officer's response to resistance?

The term that describes the appropriate evaluation of an officer's response to resistance is "objective reasonableness." This standard is used to assess whether an officer's actions were appropriate based on the circumstances they faced at the moment. The concept originates from case law, particularly from the Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Connor, which emphasizes that an officer's use of force must be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the benefit of hindsight. This approach takes into account the severity of the situation, the immediate threat posed by the suspect, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee. Objective reasonableness ensures that officers are held to a standard that balances their need to maintain control and ensure public safety with individuals' rights during encounters.

The other terms listed have distinct meanings: "justifiable force" refers to scenarios in which the use of force is legally permissible, "excessive force" indicates a level of force that exceeds what is reasonable under the circumstances, and "qualified immunity" protects officers from liability unless they violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.