posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 11:31 AM
a reply to: Boadicea
Tennessee v Garner more specifically requires that a reasonable
fear be there. An officer can't, or isn't supposed to be able to, just say "oh
that dude is scary so lemme pop a few in him." Point of fact, after the Garner decision, homicides by police actually dropped
directed states to abolish laws allowing police to shoot people for the simple act of running away.
Study by Northwestern University into the effect of
the Garner decision.
So trying to portray the Garner decision as something that gave law enforcement free reign to shoot people on a whim isn't supported by the data.
Take the Shaver shooting. Personally, I feel it's a bad shooting. By law? That's different, considering the case law we have to work with. The
totality of the circumstances and facts available at the time were that they had an unsecured male coming out of a room that had been seen waving a
gun out of his window. Until the subject is searched, you don't know what he does or doesn't have concealed on him.
To challenge the Garner decision you're going to have to legislate, very specifically, something that takes fractions of seconds to happen and covers
a wide range of circumstances.
At what point does a threat become real versus reasonably perceived? Is it when a gun is produced? Is it when a gun is pointed in the direction of a
person? Is it when a finger touches the trigger? Is it some combination of all those elements? Is it when shots are actually fired? Again, keep in
mind that you're writing this very specific legislation to address, specifically, something that can happen in dozens or hundreds of ways, each of
which can take a fraction of a second to materialize. All of which has to be observed, interpreted, and responded to by a human, not a robot.
edit on 29-11-2018 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)