Relevant Case Court Case: Tennessee V. Garner

Garner, they first looked at whether the shooting itself was legal. Once they saw that state law allowed it, they had to decide if the law that allowed it was constitutional. According to the Saint Louis University Law Journal, the supreme court decided, “If the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officers or others, deadly force cannot be used. But when the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm . . . it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force…” This ruling meant that the shooting of Edward Garner was unconstitutional. The officer who shot Garner still couldn’t be sued, because he was following the laws that were in place at that time. However, the state of Tennessee could. Tennessee lost the case because they violated the fourth amendment by creating this

Garner, the suspect's father brought forth that his unarmed son was wrongfully shot by a police officer as his son was fleeing from the burglary of an unoccupied house. He proposed a wrongful death action under the federal civil rights statute against the police officer who fired the shot, the police department and others.

Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985) that under the Fourth Amendment a Police Officer could not legally seize, take, a potential suspect’s life through the use of deadly force unless circumstances warranted it. It was deemed that only if the officer had probable cause to believe the defendant had committed a violent crime, was a danger to the community, or a threat to the officer would the officer have the authority to utilize deadly force to stop the suspect. The United States Supreme Court further decided that the Tennessee statute was invalid in regards to giving Officer Hymon authorization to use deadly force in the instance of Edward Garner. The United States Supreme Court stated that the Tennessee statute originated from a time when many more crimes were punishable by death than are in present times. Thus it could no longer be interpreted literally in light of changes to the criminal justice system. Due Process for all citizens is protected by the precedent set in this case; stating firmly, as it does, that only in instances where an officer has probable cause to believe a violent crime has occurred or has the potential to happen may said law enforcement officers use deadly force to deter, or prevent it while apprehending suspects. As stated under the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights each and every American has protection from unjust

Eric Garner was a 43 year old African American man who was also fatally injured by a law enforcement officer. A police officer in Staten Island, New York claimed Garner was selling illegal cigarettes, and then the officer placed Garner in an illegal choke hold. A bystander was able to record the event on his/her smartphone. Although the officer placed Garner in an illegal chokehold, the officer was not charged with any crimes. The officer was only put on modified duty, and his supervisor was stripped of her gun because of failure to supervise.

The Tennessee vs. Garner case in 1985 reiterated the unlawful nature of deadly force when used by law enforcement officers. A few years later, the justification of excessive force transpired during the Graham vs. Connor case in 1989. In this case, the concept of "reasonableness" was explored when a police officer followed a man’s car because of personal suspicions. Berry Graham was handcuffed and questioned. In the midst of the arrest, Graham experienced discomfort due to his diabetic condition. He simultaneously acquired several cuts and bruises because of the excessive force being used on him. His pleas were ignored, and he proceeded to file a lawsuit claiming that the force that had been used on him violated his fourteenth amendment rights regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. The court justified the practicality of the case and declared that the officer’s force was appropriate regarding the circumstances of the situation. This decision emphasized the powers that law enforcement officers have regarding the amount of force they must use to execute their duties.

The shooting occurred at the Fruitvale train station on January 1st, 2009. At the station, a fight broke out in one of the trains and when the train stopped the fight started again outside of the train at one of the stops. While they were fighting on the train the BART officers were called. The officers came and arrested everyone that was in the fight. A guy named Oscar Grant was in the fight and was also arrested (Meyer). While Grant was being arrested by Officer Mehserle, he resisted the officer’s attempts. Since Grant was resisting he was pushed onto the ground on his stomach to be handcuffed. Johannes Mehserle was having trouble handcuffing Grant so the other BART officers helped him. When Grant was on the ground Mehserle was going to tase him since he would not stop resisting. When Mehserle thought he pulled out his TASER, he instead pulled out his gun. Mehserle accidentally shot Grant with his gun since he thought he pulled out his TASER (Bulwa).

On the night of October 3rd, 1974 at approximately 10:45 p.m. Edward Garner was shot by Officer Hymon in an attempt to stop him from escaping a crime scene. Garner died on the operating table due to the gunshot wound on the back of his head. His crime was burglary and he was found with a mere ten dollars and a purse. The case was argued on October 30th, 1984 and a decision was made on March 27th, 1985. The father of Edward Garner believed his son’s constitutional rights were violated by the defendants Officer Hymon, the Police Department, and the Mayor of the city of Memphis. With a 6-3 decision, the Justices’ decided that Officer Hymon was acting justly under the fourth amendment that states that deadly force is constitutional as long as it is “reasonable”. I believe Officer Hymon was acting in good faith and simply fulfilling his duty to protect the public and stop criminals from escaping punishment.

Issue:          Garner, the suspect’s father brought forth that his unarmed son was wrongfully shot by a police officer as his son was fleeing from the burglary of an unoccupied house. He proposed a

Both parties in this case agreed that a seizure did occur when Deputy Scott collided with the rear of Harris’ vehicle, but Scott contended that given the circumstances of the chase, his actions were reasonable. Harris attempted to use the standards set in Tennessee v. Garner. The decision in the Garner case was that the officer’s excessive use of force was not reasonable because the suspect did pose an immediate danger to the innocent bystanders, the officer gave no warning, and the excessive force was unnecessary to stop the suspect’s

Payne was tried and convicted by the Tennessee Trial Court by a jury on two counts of first-degree murder and on one count of assault with intent to murder in the first degree. Payne was then sentenced to death for both murders and 30 years in prison for the assault. Payne appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court asserting that Mary Zvolanek’s testimony was “irrelevant,” and that her testimony violated his rights guaranteed by the 8th amendment as was applied in the cases of Booth. V. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989); however, the court concluded that Zvolanek’s testimony was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Following the Court’s decision, Payne appealed to the United States Supreme Court who heard his case.

According to, my research Eric Garner was not a violent man, therefore I saw no evidence to support the U.S News’ defintion of a violent altercation. Eric Garner was a forty three year old, asthmatic African American male with a beautiful wife and six children including a three month old child who loved him dearly. Mr.Garner was under the suspicion of selling loose and untaxed cigarettes. Mr.Garner’s friend who was recording the whole incident stated “He just broke up a fight”.

In the court case Tennessee v. Garner, states that the Supreme court established a standard review for evaluating claims of excessive force arising from deadly force incidents. (Ross, 2015) The justification for utilizing deadly force to stop a suspect from fleeing was discussed in this case. In the case regarding officer Smith and Billy, Officer Smith used deadly force to stop Billy from escaping the liquor store. Billy’s protected rights were violated in the case. Tennessee v. Garner states that it is not permissible to use deadly force to stop the escape of a felony suspect under all circumstances. The Supreme court also stated that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the fourth amendment reasonable requirement

In 1962 the State legislature of Tennessee was determined by a law made in 1901 by setting the number of legislators for each county. Since putting the law in motion urban area had grown greatly in population. In addition to the population growth, Mayor Charles W. Baker of Nashville put in a suit, saying that the apportionment denied voters of urban areas equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The federal court refused the suit stating that they were not going to enter the “political thicket“ of State district, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case Texas v. Johnson happened in 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag to protest President Ronald Reagan in front of the convention center in Dallas, Texas. He was a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade (Texas v. Johnson in 1989: Summary, Decision & Significance, Stephen Benz). During the 1984 Republican National Convention, he participated in a political demonstration. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration. While they were marching through the streets, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag. Johnson set the flag on fire when they reached Dallas City Hall, where the Convention was held.

Rev. Yun offered advice and discussed spiritual matters with Ms. Borzoi; therefore, Rev. Yun was acting in her professional capacity as a senior pastor at BMCC.