Tennessee v. Garner Case Analysis

Tennessee v. Garner Case Analysis

.Part B

1. After reading Chapter 9 of your text discuss the difference between human rights legal rights and moral rights,.

2. Apply these three to the Tennessee v. Garner case discussing the ramifications of each. ,

3. Research the Prima Facie Duties proposed by author W.D. Ross., In the Garner case what duties of fidelity did the officers owe the victim  what duties of justice were breached?

Part C

1.Executive Decisions

Tennessee v. Garner Case Analysis

Check tips on how to do your homework-help-services/

If you were the Chief of the Memphis Police Department during the Tennessee v. Garner case, what ethical dilemmas do you think should be addressed immediately upon the Supreme Court’s decision?

Part A: Tennessee v. Garner – Key Facts and Critical Issues

On October 3, 1974, at approximately 10:45 p.m., Memphis police officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright responded to a burglary call. Upon arrival, Officer Hymon observed Edward Garner, a 15-year-old suspect, fleeing the scene. Garner attempted to climb a fence to escape. Believing Garner was unarmed and did not pose an immediate threat, Hymon nonetheless shot him in the back of the head, resulting in Garner’s death. Hymon acted under a Tennessee statute and Memphis Police Department policy that permitted the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon.studicata.com+4supreme.justia.com+4en.wikipedia.org+4caselaw.findlaw.com+3en.wikipedia.org+3studicata.com+3

Garner’s father filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the use of deadly force violated his son’s Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court upheld the statute’s constitutionality, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court.en.wikipedia.orgsupreme.justia.com+1en.wikipedia.org+1

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court held that the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Court emphasized that deadly force may only be used if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. This ruling invalidated the Tennessee statute and set a precedent for law enforcement’s use of force nationwide.briefspro.com+4studicata.com+4caselaw.findlaw.com+4studicata.com+3supreme.justia.com+3en.wikipedia.org+3

Part B: Human Rights, Legal Rights, and Moral Rights in Tennessee v. Garner

1. Differences Between Human Rights, Legal Rights, and Moral Rights

2. Tennessee v. Garner Case Analysis

• Human Rights: Inherent rights entitled to all individuals, such as the right to life and freedom from torture.en.wikipedia.org

• Legal Rights: Rights granted and protected by legal systems, like the right to due process under the law.

• Moral Rights: Ethical principles that guide behavior, often based on societal norms and personal conscience.

2. Application to Tennessee v. Garner

• Human Rights: Garner’s right to life was central. The use of deadly force against an unarmed suspect raised serious human rights concerns.study.com+5caselaw.findlaw.com+5en.wikipedia.org+5

• Legal Rights: The case hinged on the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures. The Court found that the use of deadly force in this context violated Garner’s legal rights.studicata.com

• Moral Rights: The ethical question of whether it was morally justifiable to use lethal force against a non-threatening individual was at the heart of the case. The Court’s decision reflected a moral stance against