Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Tennessee V Garner and the Street Cop post Floyd

  1. #1

    Tennessee V Garner and the Street Cop post Floyd

    In the aftermath of the last year or so I have been stunned by some of the commentary about Police and Police Actions using Deadly Force.

    Just a sample-

    • George Floyd was arrested over _JUST_ a fake 20 dollar bill.
    • Adam Toledo (aka lil’homicide) was _JUST_ running away with his new gun and was 13 years old
    • Daunte Wright was _JUST_ driving away until a cop mistook a taser for a gun
    • Ma'Khia Bryant was _JUST_ in a fight with other teen girls, so she had a knife she is “just a kid"


    I have been in Military related circles in the past. One of the things that always fascinates me is the lag between a massive change in legal and policy areas to the final implementation and understanding in battle (or the street if you will).

    Above are examples of statements from I assume to be reasonable adults who don’t understand the reality that cops face every day. That reality is that big criminals do small crimes (like passing fake 20 bills) and you NEVER KNOW when a small crime is being perpetrated by a BIg Bad Dangerous Felon with a rap sheet a mile long.

    For example the dear departed Ma’Khia was frolicing with her knife while her Dad (a seasoned Criminal with a LONG history) was egging her on. And when the cop shot her in the process of practicing her fish gutting skills on her new playmate… then said “she was only a kid”.

    The summary is - Society NOW does not want cops using deadly force (that be shooting) of criminals. UNLESS it is OBVIOUS to poorly informed and coddled average american (who will end up on a poorly informed Jury) that there was NO CHOICE but to Shoot the Hell out of the Criminal.

    Got That? I know I know. What about preventative policing? What about danger to society? What about danger to officers?

    DOES NOT MATTER - read that again DOES NOT MATTER
    ( you can stop here if you don’t want the detailed discussion as to WHY it no longer matters)

    Tennessee V Garner

    The lingering impacts of Tennessee V. Garner the Criminal’s gift that just keeps giving.

    Brief overview of case - Tennessee had a law - simple law - run from cops get shot.
    Garner was the dad of one of these shot felons that died. Garner Dad wanted money, Tennessee said NO - Bad Son “should have known” run from cops get shot. Garner said NOT FAIR! And went to Federal Court looking for money.

    This case bounced around the Federal Court System until it made it’s way to the Supreme Court of these here United States.
    AND.. The infamous Warren Court put forth an edict.

    Most Cops look at Tennessee V. Garner and think - OK I can’t shoot Fleeing Felons.
    YEP… except THAT IS NOT ALL THAT IS IN THE OPINION

    A certain Justice named White wrote the majority opinion. He TIED use of deadly force by armed officers as a SEIZURE which invokes 4th Amendment Protections.

    (short explanation the Federal courts had been for sometime looking desperately for some means to curtail Police Deadly Force (stop them shooting Criminals). There is not a Right to Life in the Constitution so the Dear little Supremes “invented” a link between Police Use of Deadly Force and 4th amendment protections against Unlawful Seizures, cool huh? Wish I could invent reality like that)

    And dear ol’ White did us one better too! He went back into English Common law and noticed that the reason why in ol’ England it was A OK to shoot fleeing suspects… was because nearly ALL Felonies in that time WERE a Death Sentence. So White (bless his shrunken heart) also made a PROPORTIONALITY argument or heuristic rule type idea into the calculus of WHEN it’s A OK to Shoot a Criminal. Got That?

    Now from 1985 to 2020 I have no idea of the stops along the way. But it is CERTAIN that every Legal Type (Defense Counsel, Ambulance Chaser, Prosecutor) Knows the ruling very well was TAUGHT these nuances of the Tennessee V. Garner opinion for the last 30 years.

    In the opinion the Cop use of Deadly Force is called the ULTIMATE SEIZURE. That is ANY SHOOTING (or death now) is under intense scrutiny for it’s possible 4th Amendment Violation

    So I would say absent evidence of crimes that carry a death penalty or equivalent - that is Murder right in front of you. Use of deadly force should be reconsidered in light of legal realities. (By the way I am NOT advocating this in a tactical sense, just that officers should be aware)

    What does this all mean?

    Welp here’s a few hints -


    Cops should probably should rethink felon stops now. If the predicate was something minor (traffic violation, jaywalking) etc and your Cop self is drawn into a deadly force incident… despite threat to you the cop, you the cop NOW have a Great Deal of legal exposure. Certainly Civil, Probably Criminal depending on circumstances (just saying)

    Cops should probably rethink pursuit of criminals now. If the call was for something minor. Then consideration should be made for the potential of getting into a deadly force incident. Chicago has ended vehicle pursuit (according to Second City Cop) after the Adam Toledo/Lil’homicide incident there is rumor Chicago is ending foot pursuits.

    I know this is a lot but when most of us on the pro-cop side don’t understand what planet the other side is on. It helps to go back into WHY anti-cop people think the way they do. MOST people are now of the opinion (as above) that a Cop should not arrest and be on top of a suspect for 9 minutes over a fake 20 dollar bill (yes they seriously fixate on the ORIGINAL REASON why the cop was there not what the cop sees AFTER he gets there). Anti-Cop People also look at cop shootings as being somewhat orchestrated by the cop. That is cop chases bad guy into a corner bad guy pulls weapon THEN the cop can shoot the bad guy. All of this was planned by the cop! (they say with straight face)

    IF we pro-cop people realize that the other side of this REALLY REALLY believes that Criminals are precious life forces that dare not be killed except in instances that they really really are trying to murder someone. THEN I think pro-cop know the anti-cop people are delusional. But at least come to grips with what anti-cop thinking implies to operations.

    But ITS REAL Folks! There is a reason WHY other human beings are SERIOUSLY saying that Ma'Khia Bryant should ONLY have been shot to death AFTER stabbing her victim not before.

    Because AFTER Ma’Khia stabs that girl to death THEN Officer you can shoot her! The ultimate seizure is allowed after you see murder with your eyes of course!

    Think about how sheltered your life must really be to think in a deadly force incident you have time to actually think that through. Frankly I think we should just let all the coddled people receive the full force of what their weak understanding of human criminality will reap.

  2. #2
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by javanomad View Post
    Brief overview of case - Tennessee had a law - simple law - run from cops get shot.
    That was a terrible law that probably led to a lot of tragic and unnecessary loss of life (as in Garner). People run from the cops for all kinds of things, sometimes (believe it or not) just because they’re scared. Shooting anyone and everyone who runs from the police is unhinged.

    He TIED use of deadly force by armed officers as a SEIZURE which invokes 4th Amendment Protections.
    Do you disagree that the 4th Amendment restricts the government’s legal authority to physically seize people?

    There is not a Right to Life in the Constitution so the Dear little Supremes “invented” a link between Police Use of Deadly Force and 4th amendment protections against Unlawful Seizures, cool huh? Wish I could invent reality like that)
    I guess that answers my last question. Is it that you don’t think the use of force is a seizure?

  3. #3
    Abducted by Aliens Borderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Camano Island WA.
    I think we already got the Floyd verdict. Not fair but he'll get some time. The Ma’Khia criminal trial verdict, if there is one, will be based on a threat to an attack with a weapon on an unarmed civilian. I can't see where that officer will be charged.
    In the P-F basket of deplorables.

  4. #4
    I don’t think that officially ruling that a government agent using deadly force against a person to enforce the law was a seizure as described by the Fourth Amendment is the kind of mental-gymnastics-logical-leap you’re making it sound like. I think the court’s conclusion in Tennessee v. Garner was perfectly reasonable and pretty much common sense. Arresting a person is seizing them. If you shoot them to effect your arrest, you still seized them. There’s an amendment that protects you from unreasonable seizure so any seizure, including deadly force, must be reasonable or it violates your rights.
    My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

  5. #5
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Texas
    When we discuss issues pertaining to police shootings, the fact that the person killed was a scumbag is not legally relevant. In the case of the young girl shot while attacking another kid with a knife, the fact that her father is a felon is not relevant. So that we can support efforts of law enforcement in the most effective ways I suggest that we consider eliminating non relevant information from the discourse.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by javanomad View Post
    DOES NOT MATTER - read that again DOES NOT MATTER
    ( you can stop here if you don’t want the detailed discussion as to WHY it no longer matters)
    At this point I read onward, solely out of morbid curiosity

    Quote Originally Posted by javanomad View Post
    Tennessee V Garner

    The lingering impacts of Tennessee V. Garner the Criminal’s gift that just keeps giving.

    Brief overview of case - Tennessee had a law - simple law - run from cops get shot.
    Garner was the dad of one of these shot felons that died. Garner Dad wanted money, Tennessee said NO - Bad Son “should have known” run from cops get shot. Garner said NOT FAIR! And went to Federal Court looking for money.

    This case bounced around the Federal Court System until it made it’s way to the Supreme Court of these here United States.
    AND.. The infamous Warren Court put forth an edict.

    Most Cops look at Tennessee V. Garner and think - OK I can’t shoot Fleeing Felons.
    YEP… except THAT IS NOT ALL THAT IS IN THE OPINION
    I think that most officers have a more nuanced understanding of Garner than OK I can’t shoot Fleeing Felons. In fact, I'd wager that most of them understand that the SCOTUS in the Garner cause established that it was unconstitutional to seize fleeing NON-DANGEROUS felons by shooting them dead, rather than fleeing felons in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by javanomad View Post
    Now from 1985 to 2020 I have no idea of the stops along the way. But it is CERTAIN that every Legal Type (Defense Counsel, Ambulance Chaser, Prosecutor) Knows the ruling very well was TAUGHT these nuances of the Tennessee V. Garner opinion for the last 30 years.
    Include any officer trained by competent instructors in that group. Garner is pretty straightforward, and every state's Law Enforcement Use of Force statute that I've read mirrors the decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by javanomad View Post
    In the opinion the Cop use of Deadly Force is called the ULTIMATE SEIZURE. That is ANY SHOOTING (or death now) is under intense scrutiny for it’s possible 4th Amendment Violation
    Well, got to admit that if you shoot someone dead, that is pretty ultimate, no way the victim himself is going to get redress. Officers are acting in their capacity as government agents when they use lethal force to arrest. Would you want to live in a system where police officers can kill someone and not have it scrutinized?

    The danger to officers isn't the Garner decision, it is agencies and states falling over to virtue signal and writing laws and/or policies that are more stringent than Garner (and Graham).


    Quote Originally Posted by javanomad View Post
    But ITS REAL Folks! There is a reason WHY other human beings are SERIOUSLY saying that Ma'Khia Bryant should ONLY have been shot to death AFTER stabbing her victim not before.

    Because AFTER Ma’Khia stabs that girl to death THEN Officer you can shoot her! The ultimate seizure is allowed after you see murder with your eyes of course!

    Think about how sheltered your life must really be to think in a deadly force incident you have time to actually think that through. Frankly I think we should just let all the coddled people receive the full force of what their weak understanding of human criminality will reap.
    What really matters isn't what those folks say, it's what the judicial system does.

    Prosecutors have to have enough ethical courage to charge or not charge based on the evidence, not public opinion. Grand juries must do likewise.

    If they do that, then the officer you are talking about will be good to go.

    No one should expect to take a human life and have it not be scrutinized. If officers don't accept that reality, they probably ought to think it through.

  7. #7
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    Interesting perspective. Pro-active policing in the contemporary environment and the use of force gets discussed a lot in cop circles, especially in the briefings I used to hold.

    Using force to effect an arrest, or overcome resistance to making that arrest, is one consideration; defense of others is a different consideration (and that's what happened in Columbus); and then is the defense of one's self - which seems to get overlooked a lot.

    The severity of the initial offense may well be very different from the level of resistance put forth by the suspect(s) and that can drive the outcome.

    Terminology has changed over the years, one example being a Felony Vehicle (or ped) stop becoming a High-Risk Vehicle (or ped) stop. People should factor that in as well.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SF Bay Ahea
    I don't think most cops have a problem with Tennessee v. Garner; I know I don't really wanna shoot a burglar in the back, thank you. The real issue is that Graham v. Connor is under attack. In CA, it basically does not apply if the suspect is drunk, drugged, mentally or physically disabled or disturbed. The "experts" have re-ordered the priorities of life from the NTOA standard of hostages, innocent civilians, cops and finally suspects to suspects being the highest priority according to CA law. So much for bold, swift action to save hostages or victims of family violence. Take your beating or raping, sweety, the cops might get arrested if they try to save you and they have to schwack your abuser!

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •