Hummm I like the way this DA thinks but I am not so sure he's 100 percent correct - Page 2

Hummm I like the way this DA thinks but I am not so sure he's 100 percent correct

This is a discussion on Hummm I like the way this DA thinks but I am not so sure he's 100 percent correct within the Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Tennessee v Garner a fleeing burglary suspect was shot and killed by a police officer for a purse and $10. The officer was following Tennessee ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23

Thread: Hummm I like the way this DA thinks but I am not so sure he's 100 percent correct

  1. #16
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,053
    Tennessee v Garner a fleeing burglary suspect was shot and killed by a police officer for a purse and $10. The officer was following Tennessee law and department policy at the time of the shooting. The decision itself changed things nationwide.

    Me personally if I found someone stealing from me whether it be car, home, garage or whatever I would confront and detain until police arrived. Should he decide to leave the scene I would not fire him up for stealing stuff. My stuff is insured so I can get better stuff if it is stolen. On the other hand should this person become A DANGEROUS AND IMMEDIATE THREAT then I would take whatever actions needed to stop that threat.
    Should I encounter someone in my home if feasible I would confront and hold for LE and again should he decide to leave I would not shoot him for doing so. Please bear in mind this is my opinion you do whatever you can legally do or live with. It does not matter what the BG coulda, woulda or was gonna do "He could have turned around and become a threat" is not a defense. The legal logic to this uses the theory of an oncoming car.
    A car driven by a BG is coming towards you, he is using the car as a weapon, you have nowhere to go, you draw and fire killing the BG and stopping the threat. This situation could be easily articulated as being reasonable and justified.
    A car driven by a BG is coming towards you, he is using the car as a weapon, you have an avenue of escape and you get out of the way and the car passes you, the direct and immediate threat is now over you have no legal right to use deadly force as the threat has passed. Now should he turn around and come back the clock starts all over again. If not the BG's mother will be in court saying "My son after charging you in the car felt so bad he was on his way to church to confess and then to turn himself in to the police when he was brutally shot by this armed maniac"
    Whatever or however you explained "Well he coulda turned around" "He was gonna come back" would not be a legal defense in any state that I am aware of. The threat has to be immediate and direct not coming at a later date and time.
    Everytime a thread like this is posted you should review your state laws regarding castle doctrine and stand your ground laws and what you are legally allowed to do.
    Again this is my opinion and what I would do in the situation you have to figure out according to your state's law how you would handle things.
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array gottabkiddin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    7,077
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    So the supreme court found it unreasonable for a trained police officer to shoot a fleeing felon, what do you think they would say about a civilian? Case law. learn it before it is used against you.
    +1
    Yeah, if he/they are fleeing ya better let um go. I would imagine it can do you no good to either shoot him in the back, or give chase.
    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36

    "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Thomas Jefferson

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    Excerpted from Tennessee v Garner:
    From the opinion:
    A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.
    emphasis added
    From the dissent:
    The Court today holds that the Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from using deadly force as a last resort to [471 U.S. 1, 23] apprehend a criminal suspect who refuses to halt when fleeing the scene of a nighttime burglary.
    emphasis added.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    So the supreme court found it unreasonable for a trained police officer to shoot a fleeing felon, what do you think they would say about a civilian? Case law. learn it before it is used against you.
    The reference I found that discussed a private citizen was here.
    People v. Couch, (1989); pg. 430, briefed 11/4/95
    http://www.4lawnotes.com/showthread.php?t=919
    5. Holding: Same as a police officer in Garner. The private citizen can use deadly force to stop the escape of a felon where it is reasonable for the citizen to believe that the felon poses a threat of serious physical harm either to that citizen or others.

    6. Majority Reasoning: The Whitty court upheld the existing common law rule, but supplied it with a new rationale - that a private citizen is acting in the stead of a police officer, because the police officer can not always be present. Since the Garner court had given the standard for police officers, and the Whitty court had said that the private citizen stands in the shoes of the police officer, then the Garner standard was applicable to private citizens in that situation as well.
    So if a cop is not present a homeowner is in effect a police officer and not a homeowner protecting his home?

    Michael

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    The Michigan castle doctrine applies until the suspect actually exits the building.
    780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.
    Sec. 1.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

    (a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

    (b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).
    So I think the question comes down to if the suspect in this case was through the window yet.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array Phillep Harding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by tacman605 View Post
    Tennessee v Garner a fleeing burglary suspect was shot and killed by a police officer for a purse and $10.
    How is anyone going to know what is in that purse, and how much it's worth? Say it's $3,000 worth of chemo drugs (what each one of my shots costs these days)? How is that going to get replaced? How about heart medicine? No, my wallet/jacket/pack is not a school fair grab bag. He11 with him.

  7. #22
    Member Array ncsteveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Johnston co, NC
    Posts
    327
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    The Michigan castle doctrine applies until the suspect actually exits the building.


    So I think the question comes down to if the suspect in this case was through the window yet.

    Ok, the way I just read and understood michigans castle docterine once they enter the premise it becomes hunting season until they find a way to cross back over the threshold to the outside. Someone needs to buy that homeowner a box of buckshot.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillep Harding View Post
    How is anyone going to know what is in that purse, and how much it's worth? Say it's $3,000 worth of chemo drugs (what each one of my shots costs these days)? How is that going to get replaced? How about heart medicine? No, my wallet/jacket/pack is not a school fair grab bag. He11 with him.
    Just to clarify, Tennessee v Garner was a case before SCOTUS in which they held that a police officer was in violation of the fourth amendment by using deadly force to seize etc etc.
    The Whitty and Couch cases were before the Michigan Supreme Court. Those are only binding on folks in Michigan.
    Until there are cases heard in your federal circuit, SCOTUS or your state courts that find similarly to the Whitty and Couch cases in Michigan, they are exclusive to Michigan.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Ninety percent? Really?
    By Pioneer in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: March 8th, 2011, 10:07 AM
  2. Maxpedetion - 20 percent off at e-bags
    By Rollo in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 26th, 2010, 08:55 AM
  3. What percent of Colorado citizens carry?
    By mitch77 in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 22nd, 2009, 02:35 AM
  4. Winchester's 115+P+ percent of fragmention????
    By Sneaky in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 20th, 2008, 10:05 PM

Search tags for this page

tennessee v garner reasoning

Click on a term to search for related topics.