Tennessee Vs Garner Case Study

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

Excessive force being used by officers has been an ongoing issue since law enforcement was created. During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, it has been made aware that minorities were a target for the law enforcement of that time. The 1967 murder cases of “Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner against the sheriffs of Neshoba and Lauderdale County” at that time was huge seeing as everyone involved in the case got off without any charges (Wynter). After years have gone by and the 41st anniversary of their deaths has happened, someone was convicted. All this time, no one would speak up against the police of these counties in fear of being brutally murdered just like the three men that was in their care. The injustice of it did not make sense

It dismissed the claims against the defendants as being the mayor and Officer Hymon and the Police Department as being the director for lack of evidence. Hymon's actions were then concluded to being constitutional by being under the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted accordingly to the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if actions are reasonable. In this case the actions were found not to be reasonable. Officers cannot use deadly force unless they have probable cause that the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or has committed a felony.

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

In the closing statement, Ta-Nehisi Coates provides us a statement inquiring that “police are turning to police brutality to solve situations where it's not needed then leading them to overuse their power. The use of excessive physical assault or verbal assault during police procedures, such as apprehending or interrogating a suspect should never be acceptable. Deadly force is not always excessive force. However, when deadly force exceeds the force that is necessary to create a safe environment, it is considered police brutality. This is emphasised in Ta-Nehisi essay when said “his father called the police, who apparently arrived to find the 19-year-old wielding a bat. Interpreting this as a lethal threat, one of the officers shot and killed LeGrier and somehow managed to shoot and kill one of his neighbors, Bettie Jones.” this situation could have been conducted differently Though the officer over used his authority and instead of simply calming the man down governing both the father and son he chose to kill which wasn't rational .

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.

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.

There were boycotts of the malls in Baton Rouge, people were marching even holding up traffic. This didn’t only occur in Baton Rouge, but across the U.S. people were standing up for this injustice. Alton Sterling was selling cd in front of a convenience store when two officers approached him, the situation escalated Mr. Sterling was shot several times resulting in his death. Baton Rouge police did not provide much information about what escalated the incident between the officers and Sterling or what prompted an officer to fire his weapon. A witness, however, described police as “aggressive” and said Sterling was armed but was not holding his gun or touching his pockets during the incident. The level of force an officer uses varies based on the situation. Because of this variation, guidelines for the use of force are based on many factors, including the officer’s level of training or experience.

In light of the recent spate of police-involved homicides of suspects who may or may not have put the lives of the police involved in fear for their safety and well-being, this paper seeks to examine the use of deadly force by police officers in the line of duty. The training involved in using one’s service weapon in situations that call for a determination of the use of force will be explored, as will the rules, regulations, and extenuating circumstances that lead to the firing of a service weapon in the line of duty, resulting in the death of a suspect. The Supreme Court cases that have led to and/or upheld laws allowing a broader interpretation of what is considered justifiable use of deadly force will be briefly examined. Additionally, the use of non-lethal weapons, such as Tasers, by police forces and how the availability of these weapons influences the rate of deadly force will be inspected. Finally, an elucidation of the various perceptions of the general public of the police after use of deadly force is used within their communities will be addressed.

Walter Scott’s shooting by a police officer in April 2015 defines the racism in the American policing from a new perspective. In the incident, 33-year-old American police officer Michael Slager shot Walter Scott eight times in the back when Scott tried to run away from him. Slager had asked Scott to pull over because of some issues in the taillight of the car. Slager claimed before the court that he had to take this action because Scott had taken away his taser, and he was afraid that Scott might be a threat to his own life. However, later evidence from Feidin Santana, a passerby, revealed to the media a video that Santana had shot at the time of this incident. In this video, it was evident that Slager and Scott indulged in a little brawl before Scott tried to run away. Slager had his taser intact because the video clarifies that while tackling the dead body of Scott, Slager was seen handling his taser - it was not in the victim 's hands. Slager was dismissed with immediate effect from his post, and he was accused of murder (Infobase). The injustice of Walter Scott 's death clearly demonstrates that it is crucial for all police officers to wear body cameras. Police officers in body cameras will prevent violence between officers and civilians, hold officers accountable for inappropriate behavior, and serve as on-hand evidence for future judicial actions.

There are a lot of incidents that happen between police, and criminals. Always a mix up, confusion, miscommunication, and sadly, police brutality, but police always get the benefit of the doubt because of lack of evidence. A incident happened way back in around 2009, it was actually on January 1st. A twenty-two year old young man named Oscar Grant was shot at Fruitvale Station, by an officer that “thought” he was using a taser, but actually used a gun. If that officer would have had a body camera on, he would’ve been more aware of what he was doing, and he would have been caught sooner because they would have been able to see, and tell that Grant wasn’t being defiant.

Procedure:     Garner’s father brought the action the police officer took in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, looking for violations that were made of Garner’s constitutional rights. The complaint was alleged that the shooting of Garner violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. After a three day trial, the District Court entered judgement for all defendants. It dismissed the claims against the defendants as being the mayor and Officer Hymon and the Police Department as being the director for lack of evidence. Hymon’s actions were then concluded to being constitutional by being under the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted accordingly to the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if actions are reasonable. In this case the actions were found not to be reasonable. Officers cannot use deadly force unless they have probable cause that the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or has committed a felony.

1983 for violations of Garner's constitutional rights. He stated that the shooting violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/471/1.html) He was not particular when it came to the blame for this action, holding the Police Department, it’s Director, Officer Hymon, and the Mayor of Memphis city accountable. After a three-day bench trial, the District Court dismissed the charges against The Mayor and the city of Memphis due to a lack of sufficient evidence. Officer Hymon’s charges were dismissed the charges on the grounds that his actions were constitutional and were sanctioned by the Tennessee statute. The main question this case posed was: Does a statute authorizing use of deadly force to prevent the escape of any fleeing suspected felon violate the Fourth Amendment? Eventually, they decided it wasn’t, though this decision was not unanimous, representing a 6-3 split in the Supreme Court Justices. The three justices who were not in agreement were following the statement made by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor that “the majority went too far in invalidating long-standing common law and police practices contrary to the holding.”

"OK. We don't need you to do that," the dispatcher responded. But Zimmerman followed him anyway.” Zimmerman then decided to kill Trayvon. It’s not just a coincidence that all of these policemen are specifically shooting black people. Another article by NPR titled “South Carolina Police Officer Sentenced For Shooting An Unarmed Black Man” also covered the topic of Excessive police brutality towards african american

Some witnesses say that Brown has surrendered and put his hands up, which ended up with him being shot. Others say he had just started walking toward the officer and then got shot. The policeman is still unaware if he is guilty or innocent, but what if he had used a taser rather than a gun? If he were to use a taser, Brown would have most likely dropped to the ground and the police would have taken him into custody. This could have prevented the raids that happened only a year after Brown had died.