Can ICE Legally Shoot a Fleeing Suspect? Here's What The Law Says

[IM2]

Tennessee v. Garner says no. That's the law. ICE broke that law in killing Renee Good.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)​

Argued:October 30, 1984
Decided:March 27, 1985
Annotation
Primary Holding
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

When a non-violent felon is ordered to stop and submit to police, ignoring that order does not give rise to a reasonable good-faith belief that the use of deadly force is necessary, unless it has been threatened.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/

The police have been violating the law consistently, and the right wing in America has made all manner of excuses in defense of these violations.

A cop CANNOT shoot a person for not submitting to their orders. Thats the law, and the police have been breaking it.

 

[Rogue AI]

Tennessee v. Garner says no. That's the law. ICE broke that law in killing Renee Good.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)​

Argued:October 30, 1984
Decided:March 27, 1985
Annotation
Primary Holding
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

When a non-violent felon is ordered to stop and submit to police, ignoring that order does not give rise to a reasonable good-faith belief that the use of deadly force is necessary, unless it has been threatened.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/

The police have been violating the law consistently, and the right wing in America has made all manner of excuses in defense of these violations.

A cop CANNOT shoot a person for not submitting to their orders. Thats the law, and the police have been breaking it.

Good thing the most recent ICE shooting was done in self defense as a terrorist attacked with a motor vehicle. Was there some point to bring up a case decided in 1985?

 

[IM2]

Good thing the most recent ICE shooting was done in self defense as a terrorist attacked with a motor vehicle. Was there some point to bring up a case decided in 1985?

That's not what happened, which is why I posted this law. That decision applies right now.

 

[candycorn]

Tennessee v. Garner says no. That's the law. ICE broke that law in killing Renee Good.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)​

Argued:October 30, 1984
Decided:March 27, 1985
Annotation
Primary Holding
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

When a non-violent felon is ordered to stop and submit to police, ignoring that order does not give rise to a reasonable good-faith belief that the use of deadly force is necessary, unless it has been threatened.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/

The police have been violating the law consistently, and the right wing in America has made all manner of excuses in defense of these violations.

A cop CANNOT shoot a person for not submitting to their orders. Thats the law, and the police have been breaking it.

With the blob in the White House, a federal agent can murder you and their only worry is which agent to hire for the book deal detailing their "ordeal".

 

[yidnar]

That's not what happened, which is why I posted this law. That decision applies right now.

she struck the officer with her vehicle ..

 

[IM2]

 

[yidnar]

With the blob in the White House, a federal agent can murder you and their only worry is which agent to hire for the book deal detailing their "ordeal".

if Dems had their way Marxists would be allowed to strike federal agents with 2 tons of moving steel ..

 

[IM2]

she struck the officer with her vehicle ..

I have seen the video mf. So you can stop repeating lies to me.

 

[IM2]

if Dems had their way Marxists would be allowed to strike federal agents with 2 tons of moving steel ..

The lying needs to stop.

 

[yidnar]

With the blob in the White House, a federal agent can murder you and their only worry is which agent to hire for the book deal detailing their "ordeal".

we knew that Dems would be the ones to stage a REAL insurrection if they didn't get their way ..

 

[yidnar]

The lying needs to stop.

it certainly does ! the left lies better than the right can speak the truth !

 

[Rogue AI]

I have seen the video mf. So you can stop repeating lies to me.

Maybe try watching the video, not just saying you did. Even your crooked biased media is walking away from that lie.

 

[Rogue AI]

The lying needs to stop.

Yet you keep posting.

 

[yidnar]

I have seen the video mf. So you can stop repeating lies to me.

watch the beginning of the video closely ..

 

[TheInfiniteSadness]

Good thing the most recent ICE shooting was done in self defense as a terrorist attacked with a motor vehicle. Was there some point to bring up a case decided in 1985?

Are you that stupid that you don't know how American laws are created.

1985 is the year that law came into effect because of the ruling and nobody's challenged it since

A helpful Canadian

 

[Paddlefoot]

A democrat has never only did one crime or kill one person. So any person like me on a jury would say she will kill again . So the shooting is legal.

 

[j-mac]

Tennessee v. Garner says no. That's the law. ICE broke that law in killing Renee Good.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)​

Argued:October 30, 1984
Decided:March 27, 1985
Annotation
Primary Holding
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

When a non-violent felon is ordered to stop and submit to police, ignoring that order does not give rise to a reasonable good-faith belief that the use of deadly force is necessary, unless it has been threatened.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/

The police have been violating the law consistently, and the right wing in America has made all manner of excuses in defense of these violations.

A cop CANNOT shoot a person for not submitting to their orders. Thats the law, and the police have been breaking it.

This is proof you just don’t read anything that opposes your opinion…I’ve already posted, in the other thread, a decision from 2004 that says they can if they feel their life, or others are in danger of death, or serious injury…You’re reaching, because you know you’re just plain wrong.