- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 61,155
- Reaction score
- 22,785
So, this is complicated, rather it is a detailed answer. Two cases to consider. First, Graham v Connor and second, Tennessee v Garner.
In Graham v Connor, there are many factors to consider including armed vs unarmed, type of crime, suspect fighting or fleeing, size of officer and subject, number of officers and suspects, gender of officer/offender, and a few other factors. This is also where the reasonableness factor comes in, as in what would a reasonable officer do if faced with the same knowledge the officer on scene had and without using 20/20 hindsight.
The tn v Garner case involved an officer shooting an unarmed black teen in the back as he fled after breaking into an abandoned house. At that time, it was legal to shoot a fleeing felon in the back. After this case, an officer can only shoot someone in the back if they are an immediate threat to the officer or the community. This means that the use of force, which is a seizure under the fourth amendment, must be weighed against the suspect’s 4th amendment rights.
To sum up, those two cases mean that there basically has to be a reasonable belief that the suspect is an immediate threat and that the use of force be reasonable
Thanks, had a feeling you could give a detailed explanation. Much appreciated.