Tennessee V. Garner Case Summary

A review of the Prima Facia duties or conditional duties which should be followed in most instances, however, “can be overridden by other duties that are more imperative in a given instance” (Williams and Arriog, 2012) points to options that Officer Hymon could have taken in reviewing his actions in this case. Ross states that the duties of Fidelity “include the duties which stem from our own previous promise, contracts, or other agreements”, (Williams, 2012). In applying this to the Tennessee v. Garner case, there are several instances where the officer’s decision to shoot and those of the judicial system failed the victim.
The initial duty of Officer Hymon, as evidenced by the oath of office taken upon graduation from the academy is to

protect and serve the citizen (all citizens) of the community. It is understandable that Hymon while facing the homeowner had the intention to provide this service by apprehending the suspect of the home invasion, however, and I understand that this can be difficult, the same service was due to the suspect. By shooting Garner in the back of the head and killing him, Officer Hymon failed to provide Garner his right to due process and his Fourth Amendment right to be secure in his person… and the violation against unreasonable seizure of his person.
Additionally, the state statute which the Memphis Police Department followed provided the officers a wide berth as it provided minimal direction in its implementation when officers were faced with dilemmas of enforcement. As stated by T.C.A. § 40-7-108 (1982) “if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flees or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest” (Tennessee v Garner Et Al, n.d.).
Although most officers exhibit reasonable moral judgment in their discretion to use force of any nature, Officer Hymon in this instance failed to execute the duty of Fidelity by pursuing Garner instead of shooting him. Because he was able to get a good look at his face, an arrest at a later date based on his identification and any evidence would have been just as effective as an arrest that night. Likewise, the conflicting nature of the statute as related to due process sends the message to law enforcement that it is acceptable to use any means necessary to effect an arrest. In essence, the policy of the police department is to protect and serve the citizens of the community, however in an instance when you are the suspect, your rights became dependent upon the actions taken during the apprehension phase and the ethics and values of the officers involved