How Is Tennessee V Garner Effective

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)

October 3rd, 1974 around 10:45 when officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright were called out to a break in. When the officers arrived at the scene they saw a woman on her porch and she was pointing towards the adjacent house. She has said that she heard glass breaking and that they or someone was breaking in. Hymon went behind the house. Then he heard a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. That someone was Edward Garner, him running across the backyard made him a fleeing suspect, he was an appellees respondent decent. Garner stopped at a six-foot chain link fence which was at the edge of the yard. Hymon used a flashlight to see Garner’s face but he saw no weapon and though not certain was reasonably sure and figured that Garner was unarmed. Hymon thought that Garner was seventeen or eighteen years old and 5’5-5’7. Garner was actually an eighth grader fifth teen years old 5’4 and was about 100-110 pounds. Hymon yelled “police halt” and took a few steps towards him. Garner began to climb over the fence. Hymon shot him because he was convinced that if Garner made it over the fence he would elude capture. Garner was shot in the back and he died on the operating table. It turns out that Garner had only stolen ten dollars and a purse. Hymon was acting under the authority of a Tennessee statue and pursuant to Police Department policy; this

If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause that they have committed a crime involving infliction or they have threaten infliction of serious harm deadly force may be used. But an officer may not seize an unarmed, non dangerous suspect by shooting him dead. So the Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar because it authorizes the use of deadly force from a fleeing suspect. Therefor the officer in this case Hymon could not reasonably have believed that Garner posed any kind of threat what so ever. Burglary isn’t not defined as a violent crime instead it is classified as a property crime according to the FBI, but if it was an armed burglary that would be a different story (Lippman). That wasn’t the situation in this case though the suspect was not psychically dangerous because he had no weapon therefor it was a property crime not a violent crime. “Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of