Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
•Please address, who, what, where, when, why and how within each answer.
Ch. 12 According to the case of Tennessee v. Garner, what is the difference between the fleeing-felon rule and the defense-of-life standard?
Sample Answer
The Difference Between the Fleeing-Felon Rule and the Defense-of-Life Standard
In the case of Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the fleeing-felon rule and established a new standard known as the defense-of-life standard. This landmark decision reshaped the way law enforcement officers may use deadly force in apprehending fleeing suspects. In order to understand the difference between these two standards, let’s delve into who was involved, what the case entailed, where it took place, when it occurred, why it was significant, and how it shaped law enforcement practices.
Who:
The case of Tennessee v. Garner involved two key individuals: Edward Garner, a 15-year-old African American male who was shot and killed by a police officer while attempting to flee from a residential burglary, and Officer Elton Hymon, the police officer who fired the fatal shot.
What:
This case revolved around the use of deadly force by law enforcement to apprehend a fleeing suspect. The central question was whether it was constitutional for police officers to use deadly force against an unarmed suspect who was attempting to escape.
Where:
The case took place in Memphis, Tennessee, in the United States.
When:
The incident occurred on October 3, 1974, and the legal proceedings continued until 1984 when the Supreme Court rendered its decision.
Why:
This case was significant because it addressed a fundamental issue regarding the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers. It aimed to strike a balance between protecting the rights and safety of both citizens and police officers while determining the appropriate circumstances for using lethal force.
How:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner established a clear distinction between the fleeing-felon rule and the defense-of-life standard.
Fleeing-Felon Rule:
Before this case, many states followed the fleeing-felon rule, which permitted law enforcement officers to use deadly force against any fleeing suspect. Under this rule, officers were authorized to shoot and potentially kill a suspect solely based on their status as a fleeing felon. This rule granted police broad discretion to use lethal force without considering the severity of the underlying crime or the threat posed by the suspect.
Defense-of-Life Standard:
In contrast, the defense-of-life standard established by the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner placed restrictions on law enforcement’s use of deadly force. According to this standard, officers may only use deadly force if they have probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to themselves or others. This standard requires officers to consider factors such as the severity of the crime committed, whether the suspect is armed or unarmed, and whether they are an immediate threat to others.
The defense-of-life standard introduced a more cautious approach to the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers. It aimed to protect individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures while ensuring that police are still able to protect themselves and the public from dangerous criminals.
In conclusion, Tennessee v. Garner redefined the use of deadly force by establishing the defense-of-life standard, which replaced the broad discretion granted by the fleeing-felon rule. This decision marked an important moment in shaping law enforcement practices and aimed to strike a balance between preserving citizens’ rights and maintaining public safety.
