Tennessee Vs Garner Research Paper
Tennessee v. Garner
The landmark case of Tennessee v. Garner took place in 1985 in Memphis, Tennessee. One evening in October of 1974, an officer who had responded to a burglary in progress call, shot an unarmed 15 year old boy named Edward Garner who was running away from him. The boy had in fact stolen ten dollars “and some jewelry from an unoccupied house” (Criminal investigation, 2013, p. 246). As the officer shouted at his back for him to stop, he attempted to flee by jumping a fence. At this time, the officer whose weapon was believed to already be drawn, shot the teen, fatally wounding him. He died that night at the hospital during surgery from a gunshot wound to the back of the head.
This case called for the Supreme Court to rule that police “may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead” (Criminal investigation, …show more content…
2013, p. 246). This means that although a suspect has committed a crime, if they pose no immediate threat to the officers or anyone else’s lives, they are not to be shot down solely on the basis of evading arrest. The ruling stated that “It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape” (Criminal investigation, 2013, p. 246). Because of this ruling, many states including Tennessee that had previously approved of this behavior now have laws that were invalidated. To be clear, the ruling does not say that officers may never shoot a suspect. It is meant to be clearer on when deadly force should be applied to a situation. Many of us have seen foot chases in movies or on television where the officer may not be able to run as fast as the suspect he is chasing. In this instance, it is not okay for the officer to shoot him down. Now had the suspect began to flee, suddenly turning around to reach for something that could possibly be a weapon, the officer then has a right to shoot. In that moment, the suspect presented a threat that could be appropriately thwarted by use of deadly force. The Supreme Court did not deny that these type of legitimate situations do occur and that officers must be able to protect themselves when endangered.
More recently in the media, there have been frequent incidents of police officers shooting unarmed teens and adults.
Just months ago, an unarmed man was killed by an officer in Charleston, South Carolina as he ran away from him. The officer fired multiple rounds hitting the man at least 7 times, killing him. In my opinion, because the man was older than the officer, had not committed a violent crime, nor was he trying to harm the officer, he did not pose much of a threat in this occurrence. It has become more and more common for this to happen.
Initially, no charges were brought against the officer for this incident. Edward Garner’s father then filed a claim with the Federal District Court with no success. They had affirmed the decision that the officer had acted in good faith and within reason. The dissenting opinion of the Court was that the officer had done no wrong and acted rationally under the statute of the state and the departmental policy. The majority opinion was that the 4th Amendment had been violated because the reasonableness of the officers action could not be validated as no harm had been attempted on
him.
In my opinion, there is usually no reason for deadly force to be used against an unarmed individual. Like the Supreme Courts, I do realize that there are some situations they may very well warrant the use of such force. In a case where the suspect may be twice or three times the size of the officer involved and an altercation ensues, the officer may very well fear for their life. If they were to use deadly force to avoid injury or death to themselves, I could not argue against that. However, I do believe that officers should use disabling or warning shots whenever possible. There are billy clubs, pepper spray, and Tasers now available to law enforcement and should be used according to the level of threat presented.
References
1. Orthmann, C., & Hess, K. (2013). Identifying and Arresting Suspects. In Criminal investigation (10th ed., p. 246). Clifton Park, NY, New York: Delmar Cengage Learning.
2. Tennessee v. Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985). (n.d.). Retrieved June 12, 2015, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html
The landmark case of Tennessee v. Garner took place in 1985 in Memphis, Tennessee. One evening in October of 1974, an officer who had responded to a burglary in progress call, shot an unarmed 15 year old boy named Edward Garner who was running away from him. The boy had in fact stolen ten dollars “and some jewelry from an unoccupied house” (Criminal investigation, 2013, p. 246). As the officer shouted at his back for him to stop, he attempted to flee by jumping a fence. At this time, the officer whose weapon was believed to already be drawn, shot the teen, fatally wounding him. He died that night at the hospital during surgery from a gunshot wound to the back of the head.
This case called for the Supreme Court to rule that police “may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead” (Criminal investigation, …show more content…
2013, p. 246). This means that although a suspect has committed a crime, if they pose no immediate threat to the officers or anyone else’s lives, they are not to be shot down solely on the basis of evading arrest. The ruling stated that “It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape” (Criminal investigation, 2013, p. 246). Because of this ruling, many states including Tennessee that had previously approved of this behavior now have laws that were invalidated. To be clear, the ruling does not say that officers may never shoot a suspect. It is meant to be clearer on when deadly force should be applied to a situation. Many of us have seen foot chases in movies or on television where the officer may not be able to run as fast as the suspect he is chasing. In this instance, it is not okay for the officer to shoot him down. Now had the suspect began to flee, suddenly turning around to reach for something that could possibly be a weapon, the officer then has a right to shoot. In that moment, the suspect presented a threat that could be appropriately thwarted by use of deadly force. The Supreme Court did not deny that these type of legitimate situations do occur and that officers must be able to protect themselves when endangered.
More recently in the media, there have been frequent incidents of police officers shooting unarmed teens and adults.
Just months ago, an unarmed man was killed by an officer in Charleston, South Carolina as he ran away from him. The officer fired multiple rounds hitting the man at least 7 times, killing him. In my opinion, because the man was older than the officer, had not committed a violent crime, nor was he trying to harm the officer, he did not pose much of a threat in this occurrence. It has become more and more common for this to happen.
Initially, no charges were brought against the officer for this incident. Edward Garner’s father then filed a claim with the Federal District Court with no success. They had affirmed the decision that the officer had acted in good faith and within reason. The dissenting opinion of the Court was that the officer had done no wrong and acted rationally under the statute of the state and the departmental policy. The majority opinion was that the 4th Amendment had been violated because the reasonableness of the officers action could not be validated as no harm had been attempted on
him.
In my opinion, there is usually no reason for deadly force to be used against an unarmed individual. Like the Supreme Courts, I do realize that there are some situations they may very well warrant the use of such force. In a case where the suspect may be twice or three times the size of the officer involved and an altercation ensues, the officer may very well fear for their life. If they were to use deadly force to avoid injury or death to themselves, I could not argue against that. However, I do believe that officers should use disabling or warning shots whenever possible. There are billy clubs, pepper spray, and Tasers now available to law enforcement and should be used according to the level of threat presented.
References
1. Orthmann, C., & Hess, K. (2013). Identifying and Arresting Suspects. In Criminal investigation (10th ed., p. 246). Clifton Park, NY, New York: Delmar Cengage Learning.
2. Tennessee v. Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985). (n.d.). Retrieved June 12, 2015, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/case.html