Tennessee vs. Garner Case Essay: Police Use of Force & Legal Impact

In 1975, a civil rights action was initiated and filed against the police department of Memphis, the director of police, the mayor, and the Hymon office. The lawsuit was introduced as a result of an allegation that a police officer named Hymon violated Garner’s constitutional rights. It was exhibited as the stipulated police officer killed Garner through multiple gunshots. The event occurred as the suspect fled the scene of the crime he had been involved in within the region (Szkarlat, 2020). The ethical implication and a significant drive towards filing the lawsuit emerged since the police officer knew well that the suspect was not armed. Hymon stipulated that he was justified under the law to shoot the suspect to prevent him from escaping the crime scene. The case stipulated above reflects the use of excessive force by the police officers within the environment. the department, on the other hand, was sued due to failing to provide adequate training and supervision for the actions of one of their members against unarmed citizens of the United States.

Understanding complex legal cases like Tennessee vs. Garner can be challenging. Our law homework assistance team provides expert guidance for assignments, essays, and research papers on criminal justice, police ethics, and constitutional law. From breaking down case rulings to explaining legal impacts, we offer tailored support to ensure academic success. Let our professional assignment help simplify your studies and boost your grades in law courses.

Significance of the Case

The stipulated case exhibits diverse weight based on the legal framework and conduct of the law enforcement officers within the United States. Tennessee vs. Garner case resulted in restricted use of deadly force to arrest the suspects in scenarios that exhibit various threats to the profession’s ethical principles (Triola, 2022). The case resulted in the restructuring of the police department towards a professional practice that is essential and crucial to the well-being of the general population. The case is crucial to the forces of change and transformation in the policies of law enforcement within the environment. the act of shooting a minor accelerated the case’s consequences as the culprit presented a limited threat to the police officer on the crime scene.

Components of the Garner Decision

The analytical basis of the Tennessee vs. Garner case exhibits a wide range of components that could guide the decision-making process that was arrived at by the court. First is the need and urgency to use force in a scenario where the culprit was an individual less than the legal age in the United States. There was no need to use force at the stipulated crime scene as the suspect was not armed. The proportionality of the force the police officer utilized is one of the components considered in the act of rendering the final verdict (Parker et al., 2020). The proportion of force used by the underlying individual is crucial and dynamic toward endangering the lives of other citizens. The other components are the magnitude of the injury and the subjective intention of Hymon towards Garner at the crime scene.

Court Opinion for the Case

In the Tennessee vs. Garner case, the supreme court reached an agreement that permitted the police officers to use brutal force against the suspects and culprits who fled the crime scene or arrest them. It was one of the most unethical decisions generated by the supreme court, going against human rights and other elements of law within the environment. Police brutality is one of the critical methods that resulted in multiple deaths of innocent citizens within the United States of America. The 9-bench panel of judges ruled that the underlying Tennessee vs. Garner statute was unconstitutional (Kroll & Brave, 2020). As a result, the case was ruled on behalf of Hymon, a police officer that committed the crime of shooting an unarmed citizen. The decision was reached at a 6-3 panel vote within the supreme court. The decision provided by the supreme court at the time provided the police officers with an alert and a go-ahead to utilize high force on any suspect that resisted arrest within the environment.

The decision violates human rights and freedom as it subjects the free population within the community to various elements of danger and scrutiny. The stipulated case portrays a wide range of crucial facts and data that is essential for the aspect of police-community relations. Various ethical implications have been initiated due to the stipulated case within the United States. The use of heavy force on the culprits could be the temporary solution to solving the underlying misery within the environment. the dynamics of the criteria and decision provided by the supreme court on the criminal justice system could increase the aspect of crime rather than eliminating the criminal activities that are exhibited within the environment.

When the suspect is shot dead at the crime scene, it will narrow down and limit the evidence of the court toward reaching a more proactive and crucial decision that can close the case. In most cases, the suspects contain a wide range of information that is crucial and essential for completing the case. Various measures can be adopted to increase evidence collection, but eliminating the suspect only increases the crime rate rather than minimizing it. Alternatively, the action and opinion of the supreme court could also increase gun violence where culprits could be forced to retaliate, thus resulting in an elevated level of police brutality and unnecessary deaths within the environment.

References

Kroll, M. W., & Brave, M. A. (2020). Defending Non-Firearm Arrest-Related Death Incidents. International Municipal Lawyers Association. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Brave/publication/342064787_Kroll_MW_Brave_MA_Defending_Non-Firearm_Arrest-Related_Death_Incidents_International_Municipal_Lawyers_Association_IMLA_Conference_Paper_IMLA_2020_Mid-Year_Seminar_April_24-27_2020_Washington_DC/links/5f43240192851cd30222376c/Kroll-MW-Brave-MA-Defending-Non-Firearm-Arrest-Related-Death-Incidents-International-Municipal-Lawyers-Association-IMLA-Conference-Paper-IMLA-2020-Mid-Year-Seminar-April-24-27-2020-Washington-D.pdf

Parker, M. M., Cleere, K., & Smith, K. (2020). In Search of an Objective Risk Continuity Assessment: Developing an Objective Assessment for Police Deadly Force Encounters. Social Development Issues (Social Development Issues), 42(1). https://scholar.archive.org/work/meurctq6vvbdbchhuuwukw4y5e/access/wayback/https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-idx/in-search-of-an-objective-risk-continuity-assessment.pdf?c=sdi;idno=17872073.0042.102;format=pdf

Scarlet, E. (2020). Systemic Inequality| Not Secure in Their Persons: Bridging Garner and Graham. Fordham Law Review Online, 89(1), 22. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&context=flro

Triola, A. M. (2022). Reasonably Unreasonable: American Use of Force Jurisprudence and Police Impunity. Social & Legal Studies, 09646639221102540. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/09646639221102540