3d Tamer Case Brief

Officer Hymon used deadly force to stop Mr. Garner. In Tennessee, Office Hymon was “acting under the authority of a Tennessee statue and pursuant to Police Department policy. This policy states, if after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest" JUSTIA US Supreme Court Tennessee v. Garner 471 U.S. 1 (1985). Mr. Garner’s father thought the use of deadly force was wrong. However “the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted in good faith reliance on the Tennessee statute, and was therefore within the scope of his qualified immunity.”

The four officers were brought to court and tried on charges of assault. During the trial, an officer argued that Rodney King resisted arrest, and that they believed King was under the influence of Phencyclidine (PCP) which caused him to be very aggressive and violent toward the officers. When the police thought King was reaching for a weapon near his waistband, they thought the use of force would be “necessary”. The officers did not handcuff King until he lied still.

Stop and frisk has been a highly conversed topic within the general public within recent years. Many people think that these are just a way to profile possible offenders and treat them as guilty before they do anything wrong. Our book describes how that is not true because a stop and frisk must meet certain requirements in order to be valid. A major case that was held in regards to stop and frisk was Terry v. Ohio and this case determined that a police officer must meet two requirements in order for the stop to be valid. The first one is that either a crime has been committed or will be committed and the suspect is possibly armed and dangerous.

The 1989 case of Graham v. Connor follows the story of Dethorne Graham, and his interaction with a City of Charlotte police officer, M.S. Connor, and how the actions taken by Connor on the day in question had violated the fourteenth amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses. While police presence and involvement in our communities is vital to the success of a community, the infringement of an individual's rights based upon presumption without reason stands to be an incredible threat to liberty. Connor’s use of excessive force in the detainment of Graham. This case is a strong one for the reform of police protocol, as well as for the protocol for excessive force, and the reasonable person standard. The decision of this case is attributed

The City of Houston has experienced an outbreak of such police-involved shootings of unarmed individuals, particularly African-Americans. This happens so often that they are defacto City policy. Nonetheless, the City of Houston has not done anything to address the uncontrollable shooting of unarmed individuals by its officers. And, like Officer Castro, the City has not been held accountable for its actions or inactions dealing with the shooting of unarmed individuals, like Baker, by its officers, like Castro. This action, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which states that, “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.

This report was to validate that police are using excessive force on individuals. This investigative report, uncovered

How do police decide how much force should be used in a situation and how has that changed throughout the year? Has Tennessee v. Garner been effective in protecting individuals against excessive force? Before the case Tennessee v Garner in 1985, how to police decided if they should use deadly force determined by one of four groups; these four groups were The Any-felon Rule; The defense-of-life Rule; The Forcible Felony Rule, and The Model Penal Code. The extreme one was the Any-Felony Rule which was “English common law authorized officers to use any means necessary to arrest felony suspects or prevent them from fleeing. In the United States, courts interpreted this rule as legal permission to shoot an unarmed felony suspect in flight” (Tennenbaum)

Utilization of Force Continuum are to a great extent in light of the basic law elucidation that cops need not withdraw when stood up to with resistance and the Tennessee v. Earn (1985) and the Graham v. Connor (1989) choices by the United States Supreme Court, which held that there must be a target sensibility while assessing the sort of power

In today’s modern society, many feel that is okay for a police officer can kill a man armed with a harmful weapon at any cost. On many news channels, there are various amounts of articles and reports about a police officer committing this act. Even though a police officer has the right to take action against an armed man, this could be argued in many circumstances. In the 2013, Sammy Yatim was a young adult with a mental illness and was armed with a weapon on a streetcar in Toronto. Yatim was confronted by Const.

One common opinion is that officers should not use more force than is necessary or reasonable, and even then, that force should be used only as a last resort. “Police use force to affect civilians’ conduct. On a day-to-day basis, they do so most often by employing the least degree of force available to them, their mere presence. Cops wear uniforms and drive distinctly marked cars so that, without saying a word, they may have an effect on citizens’ behavior” (Fyfe, 38). When an officer’s presence fails to fulfill the desired conduct, the next course of action for said officer would be verbalization.

In the article Shaun King goes over several situations in which the police officer(s) felt that discharging their fire arm was not only justifiable but deemed the situation to be dangerous for the lives of themselves, and others in the area without provocation thus creating a public execution without a trial; infringing upon the victims constitutional rights.

His neighbor appears to be intoxicated and becomes violent when the officer reaches for his handcuffs. He takes a swing at the officer and then attempts his escape. Thirty years prior, the officer would have had the option to draw his weapon and fire or risk a dangerous car chase. Thankfully, he has a Taser gun on his belt. He is able to draw, fire, and apprehend the subject with little effort and no loss of life.

In some cases, police officers exert excessive force on individuals. The amount of force should be necessary for the situation. For example, a police officer should not use a weapon because a civilian will not obey an initial command. In the article, When Does Force Become Excessive?,

For decades now, the controversy over deadly force has continued to show up in the news when police officers have acted in a manner that some citizens find just while others deem completely unfair. Many lawsuits stemming from shootings and crimes have found their way to local courts or the Supreme Court to deal with this issue. A portion of the U.S. population finds deadly force unnecessary when non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray or batons just as easily subdue the criminal. In addition, these citizens argue that officers might be liable for cases filed against them if they use excess force on people that seem suspicious but have not actually committed a crime. On the other hand, the opposing argument in favor of deadly force states that

[ Imagine this scenario: you are complying with the police that are screaming at you, guns pointed at you, screaming “please don 't shoot” and trying your best to do what the police are asking. Daniel Shaver was an unarmed man fatally shot for no good reason. He was complying with the police officers orders and was begging for his life, screaming “please don’t shoot,” before he was fatally shot 5 times. Unfortunately, this is just one example of police brutality, an instance when police use unnecessary force when either they are unarmed or are complying with orders. Today I want to tell you of the injustice of police brutality, the people it affects, and how just asking the right questions could make sure that police are punished for their crimes.