22 Resource book on the use of force and firearms in law enforcement imminent threat of death or serious injury.60 A fleeing thief who poses no immediate danger should never be shot at, even if it means that the thief will escape.61 Similarly, someone driving through a roadblock, but otherwise posing no apparent immediate danger, should not be killed or fired at. Intentional lethal use of firearms Principle 9 of the BPUFF restricts the use of firearms to situations where there is a threat to life or serious injury. The force applied must be aimed at stopping the threat. But on rare occasions the only way to achieve this objective is by killing the person posing the threat. In these situations, the BPUFF states that law enforcement officials may resort to “intentional lethal use of firearms”. Principle 9 of the BPUFF provides for this situation, stating that “intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life”. This threshold is higher than the one for using potentially lethal force, which is also allowed to protect against serious injury. It is important to distinguish between shoot-to-kill orders during concrete operations, and shootto-kill policies. Intentional lethal use of firearms can only be lawful when it is strictly unavoidable to protect life in a particular situation; any other reason for an intentional killing would amount to arbitrary use of force, and possibly to an extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution, which is a gross violation of human rights. Any policy, or any order that allows for the intentional lethal use of a firearm with any other purpose than to protect life, is always in violation of BPUFF principle 9. Yet, during a particular operation, with an identified target posing an immediate threat to life and only when there are no other means available to reduce the threat, a “shoot-to-kill” order can be given, as for example with a suicide bomber who is ready to detonate his or her explosive device or an “active shooter” scenario where the suspect(s) have already used lethal or potentially lethal force, have demonstrated an intent to continue to use such force and thereby pose a threat to further persons. Due to the inherent dangers involved in such an operation, authorization should come from senior level, and the shooting would have to be carried out by highly trained specialists.62 A situation where it is believed that a single identified person is about to cause massive loss of life imminently is an extremely rare situation—often there will be an alternative, most likely to arrest the suspect and place him or her in custody or to consider a different type of force, or use force at a more convenient moment. When the only option left in order to save life is to shoot the suspect (and continue shooting) until he or she is dead, such a decision “should be taken as near in time as is possible to the actual shot being fired, in order to allow for the suspect concerned to change his or her mind and withdraw from the conduct that poses a threat to the life of another or others.”63 This indicates such a decision has to be based on a case-by-case analysis of the threat posed in that particular situation. Moreover, for the purposes of accountability such decisions need to be recorded and reported along with clear rationales, for future scrutiny and review. It is good practice to report any instance of use of firearms. Threat against a nuclear facility, dam, or airplane may constitute examples where lethal force is necessary. Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, A/HRC/26/36, 1 April 2014, para. 72. 62  Regarding situations requiring split second decisions on the level of force required to mitigate a threat, see chapter 3.4. 63  Ibid., § 73. 60  61