Atlanta shooting - Precedence in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

Someone mentioned this ruling in another post. It is relevant to the shooting in Atlanta.

Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Website on Supreme Court rulings

EDIT: If they can prove Brooks was a threat, the Supreme Court agrees with the Atlanta Officer's decision to shoot.

a reply to: CryHavoc

I'm sure there is case law on the books that supports slavery, too.

It doesn't make it right.

Sometimes you need to strike down bad decisions.

a reply to: CryHavoc

I assume that you know what the decision was?

The cop lost the case.

(c) While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect -- young, slight, and unarmed -- posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous. Pp. 20-22.

Regarding the 4th admendment:

The Fourth Amendment, for purposes of this case, should not be construed in light of the common law rule allowing the use of whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon.

a reply to: CryHavoc

EDIT: If they can prove Brooks was a threat, the Supreme Court agrees with the Atlanta Officer's decision to shoot.

Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

Was warning given? "Stop or I'll shoot." Seems there was opportunity to do so.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CryHavoc

I assume that you know what the decision was?

The outcome of the original case is irrelevant. It's the SCOTUS ruling that will come up in court.

You don't think someone who just assaulted 2 Police Officers, escaped arrest, and shot a stolen Tazer at one Officer is a threat? Who else would he have assaulted in order to get away?

The blame for Brooks' death lies squarely at the feet of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Crazy beezatchers wanted legislation ... look at Brooks.

He just dayed.

a reply to: CryHavoc

It's the SCOTUS ruling that will come up in court.

The ruling was in regard to the Constitutionality of the Tennessee law. Is that what this case is about?

You don't think someone who just assaulted 2 Police Officers, escaped arrest, and shot a stolen Tazer at one Officer is a threat? Who else would he have assaulted in order to get away?

Who would have tried to stop him? Did he fire the tazer? If so, the weapon would have then been useless wouldn't it?

Did the officer offer warning?

a reply to: CryHavoc

Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

That "good-faith belief" part is the crux of the whole argument. Lawyers will have a festival with the interpretation of that.
I believe it is a great precedent, but also very dated in the context it was originally used in.

For the record, I believe that a criminal who overcomes an officer, steals a weapon, runs away and as being persued, turns and fires that weapon in the direction of the officer.... the take down was justified. When an officer pulls and fires a pistol, they are trained and instructed to fire more than one round and shoot to kill. There is no compromise for that.

originally posted by: Phage
Who would have tried to stop him? Did he fire the tazer? If so, the weapon would have then been useless wouldn't it?

Did the officer offer warning?

Not sure what you're asking here. The officers already told him he was under arrest. They don't have to say anything else.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CryHavoc

It's the SCOTUS ruling that will come up in court.

The ruling was in regard to the Constitutionality of the Tennessee law. Is that what this case is about?

It doesn't have to be a Constitutionality case. The SCOTUS ruling also address Use of Force.

a reply to: CryHavoc

The officers already told him he was under arrest. They don't have to say anything else.

The SCOTUS decision would seem to say otherwise when it comes to deadly force.

Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

Not feasible to yell "Stop or I'll shoot?"

It was a bad situation which occurred at a bad time. For everyone.

originally posted by: Phage
Not feasible to yell "Stop or I'll shoot?"

Not if he was out of breath from running and being assaulted.

We also don't know if the Officer said anything, do we?

I also just read something, which could be wrong, that a Tazer is considered a Deadly Weapon under Georgia Law.

a reply to: CryHavoc

We also don't know if the Officer said anything, do we?

There are any number of things we don't know. Including whether or not the tazer was fired.

a reply to: CryHavoc

I don't watch video's containing content of people getting shot (personal thing) but from what I have gathered, is that the guy stole the officers taser, then proceeded to fire it at him while running away, and the officer then fired.

A taser is a lethal weapon. It's LESS-lethal, but still lethal.

It also typically incapacitates the individual it is used against. The individual it was attempted against was LEO with a firearm. Police tasers aren't single shot devices, and becoming disabled could allow the suspect to then take the firearm.

Lesson?

Don't steal anything from LEO and use this against them. This guy would still be alive if he didn't.

originally posted by: Phage
There are any number of things we don't know.

Yeah, I know, Boss. Maybe we'll know more in the morning. For now, I'm too tired for this crap.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CryHavoc

I'm sure there is case law on the books that supports slavery, too.

It doesn't make it right.

Sometimes you need to strike down bad decisions.

Yeah , about 150 years ago.
Take that long for news to reach you ?

As far as the law goes , we like for police officers in the US to be able to actually protect us from the bad guys.
How bout you , where you are at ?

originally posted by: CryHavoc
Someone mentioned this ruling in another post. It is relevant to the shooting in Atlanta.

Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Website on Supreme Court rulings

EDIT: If they can prove Brooks was a threat, the Supreme Court agrees with the Atlanta Officer's decision to shoot.

Nice work...this is one of the ones we need to change expeditiously.....excellent work keep finding them please....any Law that supports the murder/execution....it saves us all time really....the Worm is turning and once it starts it does not stop till it sees Sunshine out its arse.

a reply to: one4all

What do you mean “we,” Canuck?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CryHavoc

I assume that you know what the decision was?

The cop lost the case.

(c) While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect -- young, slight, and unarmed -- posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous. Pp. 20-22.

Regarding the 4th admendment:

The Fourth Amendment, for purposes of this case, should not be construed in light of the common law rule allowing the use of whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon.

Except this suspect was a convicted violent felon, who successfully fought off two officers and in the process committing several violent felonies to elude, was not affected by the officers taser, stole a "deadly weapon according to the DA" and then proceeded to fire said deadly weapon at the officers. Hardly a non-violent felon.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CryHavoc

We also don't know if the Officer said anything, do we?

There are any number of things we don't know. Including whether or not the tazer was fired.

The taser was absolutely fired, you can both hear the taser fired and see the wires deploy. Very obvious in the video.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: one4all

What do you mean “we,” Canuck?

Hello Neighbor....mind cleaning your dog# up off of the common area its stinking up the whole Neighborhood?....how that for you huh?.........WWG1WGA.....if you don't get your # sorted out it ruins the whole Neighborhood....Canada is now as bad as or worse a cesspool than America is and the same asshats who ruined America also ruined Canada...so spare me the olde style Border whining.....its OUR NEIGHBORHOOD....and WE will keep it clean and tidy and a pleasure to enjoy for EVERYONE.

Thats what I mean by "we" and there is another level to that a Global Neighborhood level we are now working towards realising.