08-17-2014, 07:38 AM
|
|
|
It's 42
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 18,083
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
I think you might be wrong.
Tennessee v. Garner says that a police officer cannot shot a kid for purse snatching. They said "cops couldn't shoot every felon who tried to escape". However, at the same time, the same court said "if you've got a violent person who's fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight".
In this case you can argue the kid was a "violent" person - No matter if the officer knew about the robbery (a violent felony), the kid did attack him, attempt to take his firearm, and potentially risked the life of the officer.
If you accept the police version of the story, the kid attempted to steal the officer's firearm and was going to shoot him. At that point you cannot deny he was a violent person, and you cannot deny he was a threat to society.
|
Read it a few times -- The defendant won judgement in his favor in the US District court, the Appellate court reversed the District Court, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Appellate court for rehearing on the 4th amendment issues. That is the polite way of saying to the Appellate Court you ruled in error.
Quote:
The Court of Appeals reversed.
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]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=471&page=1
|
|
|
|