1) In 1985, the United States Supreme Court decided Tennessee V. Garner, that the court held that a police officer may not use deadly force to apprised a fleeing felon who does not pose a “significant threat of death or series physical injury to the officer or others. This was because of Edward Garner was a juvenile (15 years old) who burglarized a home stealing $10.00 and a purse. He jumped over the backyard fence to escape after police ordered him to halt, at which point police shot him in the back of the head to prevent escape, killing him. Justice White following illustration says deadly force can be used by an officer to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the fleeing suspect has just come from committing a crime threatening or inflicting serious harm upon another.
2) Defense of Life– Deadly force can only be used on a fleeing felon or any felon if there is an immediate threat of danger present. Crimes Involving Use/Threats of Deadly Force –deadly force is permitted if the arrest is for a felony that involved the use or threat of death. Crimes Involving the Use/Threats of Any Force –police may use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect if any degree of force was used during the …show more content…
Conner (1989) is a second Supreme Court ruling determined that the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonable test” for officers who use any kind of force, in cases where citizens claim that the force was excessive, is for the jury to ask themselves: “would a reasonable person, standing in the officer’s shoes at the moment, have acted by using deadly force?” I do not think this is justified because people are not cops, people who are not cops do not have police training. So, they cannot think like police officers, officers have the ability to think before doing something and they use this to say they were scared when they weren’t. So, the jury shouldn’t put themselves in the police offices shoes and they should look at the evidence and go by
2) Defense of Life– Deadly force can only be used on a fleeing felon or any felon if there is an immediate threat of danger present. Crimes Involving Use/Threats of Deadly Force –deadly force is permitted if the arrest is for a felony that involved the use or threat of death. Crimes Involving the Use/Threats of Any Force –police may use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect if any degree of force was used during the …show more content…
Conner (1989) is a second Supreme Court ruling determined that the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonable test” for officers who use any kind of force, in cases where citizens claim that the force was excessive, is for the jury to ask themselves: “would a reasonable person, standing in the officer’s shoes at the moment, have acted by using deadly force?” I do not think this is justified because people are not cops, people who are not cops do not have police training. So, they cannot think like police officers, officers have the ability to think before doing something and they use this to say they were scared when they weren’t. So, the jury shouldn’t put themselves in the police offices shoes and they should look at the evidence and go by