471 US1 (1985)
Tennessee vs Garner, et.al.
No. 83-1030
Argued October 30, 1984
Decided March 27, 1985
A Tennessee statute provides that if, (click here) after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed appellee-respondent Garner's son as, after being told to halt, the son fled over a fence at night in the backyard of a house he was suspected of burglarizing. The officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" the suspect was unarmed and thinking that he was 17 or 18 years old and of slight build. The father subsequently brought an action in Federal District Court, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for asserted violations of his son's constitutional rights. The District Court held that the statute and the officer's actions were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed....
The activists have a law. The activists are undoubtedly correct. The prosecutors are very wrong. Why so many are disregarding this decision is outrageous.
Held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]
(a) Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 7-12....
This federal decision supersedes any state or local law. These police forces and prosecutor's offices are operating on unconstitutional grounds.
JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others....
The parents and spouses and families including children; have recourse though the federal system in the appellant courts. The local authorities have and are conducting unconstitutional police work. There is NOTHING that justifies '...I felt threatened.' That is hogwash. There has to be significant threat, not simply '...I felt threatened."
In using deadly force to prevent the escape, Hymon was acting under the authority of a Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. The statute provides that "[i]f, 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." Tenn. Code Ann. [471 U.S. 1, 5] 40-7-108 (1982). 5 The Department policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute, but still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. App. 140-144. The incident was reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm's Review Board and presented to a grand jury. Neither took any action. Id., at 57.
Garner's father then brought this action in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for asserted violations of Garner's constitutional rights. The complaint alleged that the shooting violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution....
...The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. 710 F.2d 240 (1983). It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, 6 and is therefore constitutional only if "reasonable." The Tennessee statute failed as applied to this case because it did not adequately limit the use of deadly force by distinguishing between
felonies of different magnitudes....
It was a seven to two decision and Justice White wrote the majority opinion which included Sandra Day O'Connor and Thurgood Marshall. (click here)
710 F.2d 240, affirmed and remanded.
The deaths occurring in the USA of unarmed black men is over reach and is illegal. There is no way an 18 year old black man should be wrestled with and/or killed for $12 cigarillos.
There is no way a 12 year old boy should have been buried today for having a toy gun in a park. The country has to examine the qualifications of their police including how well they balance their power against reason.
A child's situation is very different from that of an adult. As soon as a police officer yells out "Drop the gun." an adult would understand that. But, for a police officer confronting a child there is no way a child can process those words into a real life circumstance.
Tamir Rice was 12 years old and playing by himself in the park with a BB gun. To a child play is innocence of any wrong doing. Tamir liked to pay with his gun. If someone came along and stated "Drop your gun," it would be confusing to ask him to do that. To begin with it was his gun, a toy he was fond of and one of status to his idea of play. The last thing a child will do is give up a toy they cherish to anyone. It's their toy.
The toy was a toy to Tamir. He wasn't causing harm, there was no danger to anyone and he might have even enjoyed being an annoyance to passerbys. That is mischief and testing the limits of his behavior with others. There is nothing illegal about being annoyance, especially if a child.
When a police officer shouts "Drop the gun," to a child there is no reasonable thought process within that child's life experience he can draw on to carry out the order from the police officer. Tamir was 'an innocent.' He had no thoughts of violence and didn't understand how he could have a role in any violence. To Tamir it was a day in the park playing with his gun and scaring little old ladies, etc.
The idea a police officer can apply adult content to a circumstance of a child is absurd. Completely absurd. When social workers and medical professionals practice their trade they have to take courses to qualify as a professional. Those course outline the growth and development of EVERY AGE of person from birth to death. The individual is to be interacted with an understanding of their ability to relate to the professional.
Ever hear of Play Therapy. That exists because a child cannot express themselves in adult terms, but, can draw and color more of their feelings and thoughts that can be understood by professional adults.
The entire circumstance of the American Black Community is outrageous and to think children die because police didn't know how to be a professional is unthinkable.
Thank you, Lawrence O'Donnell. You finally have The Last Word.
Good night.
Tennessee vs Garner, et.al.
No. 83-1030
Argued October 30, 1984
Decided March 27, 1985
A Tennessee statute provides that if, (click here) after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed appellee-respondent Garner's son as, after being told to halt, the son fled over a fence at night in the backyard of a house he was suspected of burglarizing. The officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" the suspect was unarmed and thinking that he was 17 or 18 years old and of slight build. The father subsequently brought an action in Federal District Court, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for asserted violations of his son's constitutional rights. The District Court held that the statute and the officer's actions were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed....
The activists have a law. The activists are undoubtedly correct. The prosecutors are very wrong. Why so many are disregarding this decision is outrageous.
Held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]
(a) Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 7-12....
This federal decision supersedes any state or local law. These police forces and prosecutor's offices are operating on unconstitutional grounds.
JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others....
The parents and spouses and families including children; have recourse though the federal system in the appellant courts. The local authorities have and are conducting unconstitutional police work. There is NOTHING that justifies '...I felt threatened.' That is hogwash. There has to be significant threat, not simply '...I felt threatened."
In using deadly force to prevent the escape, Hymon was acting under the authority of a Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. The statute provides that "[i]f, 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." Tenn. Code Ann. [471 U.S. 1, 5] 40-7-108 (1982). 5 The Department policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute, but still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. App. 140-144. The incident was reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm's Review Board and presented to a grand jury. Neither took any action. Id., at 57.
Garner's father then brought this action in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for asserted violations of Garner's constitutional rights. The complaint alleged that the shooting violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution....
...The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. 710 F.2d 240 (1983). It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, 6 and is therefore constitutional only if "reasonable." The Tennessee statute failed as applied to this case because it did not adequately limit the use of deadly force by distinguishing between
710 F.2d 240, affirmed and remanded.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C. J., and REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 22.
...A police officer may arrest a person if he has probable cause to believe that person committed a crime. E. g., United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976). Petitioners and appellant argue that if this requirement is satisfied the Fourth Amendment has nothing to say about how that seizure is made. This submission ignores the many cases in which this Court, by balancing the extent of the intrusion against the need for it, has examined the reasonableness of [471 U.S. 1, 8] the manner in which a search or seizure is conducted. To determine the constitutionality of a seizure "[w]e must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion." United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 703 (1983); see Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654(1979); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 555 (1976). We have described "the balancing of competing interests" as "the key principle of the Fourth Amendment." Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 700, n. 12 (1981). See also Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 536 -537 (1967). Because one of the factors is the extent of the intrusion, it is plain that reasonableness depends on not only when a seizure is made, but also how it is carried out. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 895 (1975); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 28 -29 (1968)....
There is no way a 12 year old boy should have been buried today for having a toy gun in a park. The country has to examine the qualifications of their police including how well they balance their power against reason.
A child's situation is very different from that of an adult. As soon as a police officer yells out "Drop the gun." an adult would understand that. But, for a police officer confronting a child there is no way a child can process those words into a real life circumstance.
Tamir Rice was 12 years old and playing by himself in the park with a BB gun. To a child play is innocence of any wrong doing. Tamir liked to pay with his gun. If someone came along and stated "Drop your gun," it would be confusing to ask him to do that. To begin with it was his gun, a toy he was fond of and one of status to his idea of play. The last thing a child will do is give up a toy they cherish to anyone. It's their toy.
The toy was a toy to Tamir. He wasn't causing harm, there was no danger to anyone and he might have even enjoyed being an annoyance to passerbys. That is mischief and testing the limits of his behavior with others. There is nothing illegal about being annoyance, especially if a child.
When a police officer shouts "Drop the gun," to a child there is no reasonable thought process within that child's life experience he can draw on to carry out the order from the police officer. Tamir was 'an innocent.' He had no thoughts of violence and didn't understand how he could have a role in any violence. To Tamir it was a day in the park playing with his gun and scaring little old ladies, etc.
The idea a police officer can apply adult content to a circumstance of a child is absurd. Completely absurd. When social workers and medical professionals practice their trade they have to take courses to qualify as a professional. Those course outline the growth and development of EVERY AGE of person from birth to death. The individual is to be interacted with an understanding of their ability to relate to the professional.
Ever hear of Play Therapy. That exists because a child cannot express themselves in adult terms, but, can draw and color more of their feelings and thoughts that can be understood by professional adults.
The entire circumstance of the American Black Community is outrageous and to think children die because police didn't know how to be a professional is unthinkable.
Thank you, Lawrence O'Donnell. You finally have The Last Word.
Good night.
