Tennessee V. Garner

1326 Words3 Pages

The rotten apple theory and police deviance are directly connected. In An Introduction to Policing, the rotten apple theory is stated to be a type of police corruption in which individual officers are corrupt rather than the entire department. This theory describes the idea that one or two corrupt officers in a department, the “rotten apples”, will cause the other officers to begin acting in a corrupt manner. It is one of the main explanations for police corruption, and some departments may experience more deviance and corruption than others. Police deviance, as stated by Texas Police Accountability, is more broad than the concept of corruption. Corruption is an individual using their power as an officer for personal gain, while police deviance …show more content…

For a long time, deadly force was considered reasonable when dealing with a fleeing felon. This, of course, created a lot of issues, and it became clear that something needed to change. The U.S. Supreme Court finally addressed the concept of deadly and unreasonable force in 1985 with the case of Tennessee v. Garner. Eugene Garner was shot and killed by an officer in Tennessee, and his father filed a civil case against the Memphis Police Department. The court ruled in favor of Garner and recognized laws that allowed deadly force against nonthreatening felons were unconstitutional. Today, deadly force is only allowed in instances of self-defense or defending others from any threat that the felon may be displaying. Alternatively, less lethal weapons can be employed in cases where someone may be threatened, but deadly force would be unreasonable. Some of these weapons include batons, pepper spray, and tasers. These allow officers to avoid resorting to any use of deadly or unreasonable force, however, they can still be used improperly. This is why proper training is vital, along with the employment of less lethal …show more content…

Officer, M.S. & M.S. Connor, was suspicious that he walked in and left quickly, so he followed the two men and pulled them over. Graham was still having a reaction and passed out on the sidewalk. He awoke face down on the sidewalk and was handcuffed. He was put into the cop’s vehicle, but was resisting. Connor concluded that Graham had done nothing wrong, but Graham still sustained many injuries, including broken bones. This case was fundamental in establishing a baseline degree of reasonableness for the use of force by law enforcement officers. It created a standard for what kind and how much force is legally allowed. This ruling emphasized the importance of officers considering their own actions and working without employing unreasonable force. This case is still a keystone in determining the legality of police conduct when interacting with civilians. The force continuum, also called the use-of-force continuum, is a guiding concept for officer interactions that may call for the employment of force. There is a standard on when and how force should be used, as well as what circumstances call for the use of deadly or lethal

Open Document