The Death Of Tennessee V Garner

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

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 an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. The Court found that the officer acted on more than an “hunch” and that “a reasonably prudent

In recent years and in light of recent tragedies, police actions, specifically police brutality, has come into view of a large, public and rather critical eye. The power to take life rests in the final stage of the criminal justice system. However, the controversy lies where due process does not. While the use of deadly force is defined and limited by departmental policies, it remains an act guided chiefly by the judgment of individual officers in pressure situations. (Goldkamp 1976, 169). Many current studies have emphasized the racial disparities in minority deaths, primarily black Americans, killed by police through means of deadly force. The history of occurrences reveals the forlorn truth that police reforms only receive attention in wake of highly publicized episodes of police misconduct. The notorious 1992 Los Angeles riots brought the matter to mass public attention and prompted improved law enforcement policy. Significant local reforms resulted, for instance, ending the policy of lifetime terms for police chiefs. Additionally, on a broader platform, in 1994, Congress approved provisions to the Crime Control Act in effort to tackle police abuse in a more structured way.

Four years ago Danroy “DJ” henry Jr. from Easton, Ma, was killed by a New york police officer. Since then the nation seen the death of trayvon Martin who was kiilled by a neighborhood watch volunteer and Michael brown who recently just got killed by a policeman in Ferguson, Missoury. However, the story of Eric Garner is shown to be an ongoing issue between Eric Garner and the New york police department weeks prior to the incident. In the video, Garner is seeing expressing to the policeman that he was tired of being harassed by the same policeman and he was not selling cigarettes. During the whole conversation more officers started to approach the scene and eventually as Garner was speaking the officers moved to arrest a much taller Eric Garner. After Garner resisted the arrest, officer daniel pantaleo approached garner and put him in what is an illegal chokehold and brought him to the ground. Four other officers restrained Garner in the sidewalk where he repeated “ I cant Breathe” 11 times to the police officers that was in the scene. After the incident the police department stated it was an unfortunate situation of man who had previous altercation with the police prior to july 17th 2014. After the incident medical examiners determine Garner’s cause of death was due to neck compression, and the compression of his chest and contributing health factors such as asthma and cardiovascular condition that correlates with his death. On December 3rd 2014 a grand jury decided not to

The defendant reported he was primarily raised by his grandmother in Pleasantville, NJ after his mother passed away when he was 7 years old. His mother's name was Sherry Taylor and his father's name is unknown. He doesn't recall what type of work his mother did. He described his childhood as good, and denied any instances of child abuse and

The most crucial part of this case, comes down to one word: reaction. Furthermore, Los Angeles Police Officers, Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson, did what their instincts told them to do- which was react. Angel Mendez and Jennifer Lynn Garcia were hiding out in a shack, and Mendez was holding a gun. Both officers felt threatened, and they did what trained police officers are told to do, along with what anyone that knows how to react, would have done. If one feels threatened, one is going to whatever it takes to protect one’s self. The United States Supreme Court should rule in favor of the Los Angeles Police Department because officer’s Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson had every right to react the way the did,

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”.

On August 9, 2014 a white male police officer named Darren Wilson fatally shot an African-American male named Michael Brown to death in Ferguson, MO. An investigation was immediately launched through the collection of evidence from the crime scene, an autopsy of Michael Brown’s body, and interviews with witnesses. For several months following the shooting and after the Grand Jury met, there was immense public speculation over whether Officer Wilson justifiably shot in self-defense or in racially motivated cold blooded murder. The ballistic evidence collected from the crime scene and from the autopsy corroborated Wilson’s story that he was justified in what transpired that fateful afternoon.

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.

In the United States v. Virginia court case, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) was the only single sexed school in Virginia. The VMI’s purpose was to train males to become leaders in the future. The District Court knew that women was missing an opportunity for equal education. Virginia wanted to make an institute for women, and they thought it would be equal to the VMI. They would both offer comparable educational benefits. The Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) couldn’t do much without compromising the school’s adversative method.

Plumhoff v. Rickard case began after Rickard’s minor daughter filed a 42 U.S.C. action, stating that the police officers had used excessive force, therefore violating the 4th and 14th amendments. The daughter’s suit was

Without hashing the charges against Batson, the crux of this case is whether or not the prosecution discriminated against Batson by systematically eliminating potential black jurors by using peremptory challenges, thus, violating Batson’s equal protection privilege. At the time, the case law that ruled this issue was Swain v. Alabama (1965), which virtually made it impossible for a defendant to prove that the prosecution was systematically discriminating on the basis of race or gender by putting the burden of proof on the defendant. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky (1986), the Supreme Court took into consideration two areas in examining this case – 1) the defendant made a timely and proper objection to the prosecution’s removal of all possible