This 1985 Law Must be Overturned
In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer is allowed to use deadly force when pursuing a fleeing suspect if the suspect poses a threat of death or physical injury to either the officer or to others.The case that this legal standard is derived from was the case of Tennessee v Garner. In this case, an officer shot and killed a fifteen year old burglar. Although burglary is wrong and unethical, I do not believe this young teen deserved to die.
The court in the case of Tennessee v Garner also ruled that the force used by an officer must be objectively reasonable. To be objectively reasonable means that another person in the situation would be reasonably made the same choice. Robert Kane, an associate professor at the University of Baltimore's School's Criminal Justice, explains that the legal standards are very loose. He also states that there are a lot of gray areas in terms of judging an appropriate amount of force. (Tennessee v. Garner)
I agree with Kane in the fact that this law leaves too many grey areas. One major problem with this legal standard is that all people have a different opinion on what an appropriate amount of force is. It bogles my mind that the courts would leave the appropriate amount of force to an officer's discretion. On one hand, I understand that law officials have difficult and life risking jobs, but I do not believe that this should give them the leeway to walk around killing induvial. I believe there must be a better way to handle these situations.
Another problem that I believe needs to be discussed, is what actually posing a threat means. To one officer posing a threat might mean the suspect has a weapon while to another officer posing a threat might be someone who looks suspicious. Looks are often not what they appear to be so it is not fair for someone to judge someone's life based on a look that might later be determined as wrong.