In the Gold case, Supreme Court Justice Agranat held that, even in the absence of alternative means to effect a lawful arrest, deadly force may be used only where the arrest is pursuant to the commission of a felony. That ruling stands unchallenged to this day. This decision was appropriate to its time and place. It set a limit to the use of deadly force where the legislature had not. It also provided the means for later case-law development, had the opportunity arisen, of a clear reasoned treatment of the essential elements of the law in this area so vital to a society whose widespread violence so often requires a violent, official response. The time has come for the legislature to infuse it with meaning. The current drafting of a new criminal code certainly provides an appropriate opportunity. Although it is not essential that it be included among the defenses to criminal liability in the substantive criminal law, absent any legislative arrangements matters of life and death will remain hidden in the secret rules of the various security services. The current nebulous state of Israeli law in this area is desirable only for those who consider unclear policy to be a valuable deterrent that leaves offenders uncertain as to how the police will deal with them. 100 footnotes