Whenever there is a high-profile law enforcement incident involving the use of force, particularly deadly force, it takes almost no time whatsoever for internet “experts” to weigh in and decide whether or not the officer involved was in the right. And, in most cases, with little to no knowledge of the details, many people will immediately decide the officer has violated not only department policy, but the law as well. The problem is that the vast majority of people have no idea how to understand use-of-force scenarios and what governs the legal determinations over whether that force was appropriate.

Therefore, it is necessary to explain a very important legal doctrine known as “objective reasonableness.” This doctrine was determined through the Supreme Court case of Graham v. Connor. The Court determined that any use of force must be viewed through the lens of what a reasonable officer would do in a situation given the facts and circumstances that were known to the officer at the time, and not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. In other words, the Courts cannot look backward in time and attempt to decide what other possible options the officer could have had and decide if the force used was appropriate. Instead, the Court must evaluate the use of force based on what the officer knew in the moment that the incident occurred. The only possible basis for evaluating the force used is to look at the totality of the circumstance through the eyes of an officer in that moment in time.

The entire reason this doctrine exists is to prevent what happens so often today, people who are not trained as officers, who do not know the complete circumstances an officer faced, and who more often than not, inject their own biases into a given situation, attempting to judge an officer’s actions and find them wanting. This is particularly prevalent in high-profile deadly force encounters, especially when there is video being released to social media shortly after the events occur. Most often, these videos are incomplete and fail to provide the entire encounter that leads to the use of deadly force. People see 30 seconds of video from one or two angles and determine that the officer must have been in the wrong because they cannot justify the use of force in their own mind. They make little to no attempt to determine how the officer likely viewed the situation, nor are they concerned with any extenuating circumstances that could have led to the use of deadly force. The court of public opinion does exactly what the Supreme Court determined should not, in fact, cannot be done in these circumstances.

Why is this important for Christians? Simply because Christians are people of truth. The truth is what drives our devotion and worship of Jesus Christ. Our faith is not an emotionally driven experience. It is settled in the historical truth of the person and work of Jesus Christ. We do not follow him because it makes us feel good, we follow Christ because he exists, he came to earth and took on human flesh, he lived a perfect life, and he died in the place of sinners to pay the penalty for their sins. And then he rose again, defeating death and securing eternal life for those who repent and believe in him. Truth is the bedrock foundation of our faith. Therefore, we should always be a people devoted to the pursuit of truth in every single situation.

When social media erupts with the latest story involving law enforcement, we should desire, more than anything, to know the truth of what happened. Not the opinion of pundits, not the rhetoric of politicians, and certainly not the faux-rage of paid-for sociopolitical activists. We should be patient people, looking to the facts and circumstances, giving time for investigations to be conducted. We should desire that those who are in the right are exonerated, and those in the wrong are held accountable. We should not be swift to judgment, rather we should look to God and pray that he brings about true and swift justice. In turn, we should care about those who are hurt in these matters. Yes, those who act with criminal malice may be injured or die in these cases, but, while they may have received the results of their actions, we do not rejoice in the loss of anyone’s life. We grieve with those who grieve, we pray for those who are afflicted. We show Christian charity and grace by not joining the angry mob in online arguments.

Furthermore, Christians should be willing to view these matters through the doctrine of objective reasonableness because Scripture demands this of us. God himself set forth that evidence had to be submitted for people to be convicted of a crime when he required two or three witnesses for a matter to be established (see Deut. 17). In determining the doctrine, the Supreme Court is requiring that Courts cannot inject opinion or preference into a matter, but must uphold the law and require proof of any wrongdoing to rule force was unjustified. Christians who love God should recognize the biblical principles applied in this doctrine. This doctrine does not exist to simply give law enforcement a pass, for it has been used to rightfully penalize and punish those officers who have violated the law and department policy. Therefore, Christians must desire to uphold the law and stand behind the tools of justice.

Christians cannot afford to be a people swayed in the moment by emotional appeals and political rhetoric. We must be a people who are willing to stand firm in our belief that truth above all must be sought out and applied. Even if it makes us unpopular, even when others cry that injustice might reign, we must never forsake the pursuit of the truth. We must trust in the wisdom and justice of God in these matters, for he is wiser and more just than any of us can ever be.