The rule from Tennessee v. Garner states that the harm resulting from failing to apprehend an unarmed suspect does not justify the use of deadly force. This rule pertains to:

The rule from Tennessee v. Garner states that the harm resulting from failing to apprehend an unarmed suspect does not justify the use of deadly force. This rule pertains to:

• A. Arrest of armed suspects only
• B. Use of deadly force in any circumstance
• C. Unarmed, non-dangerous suspects
• D. Use of deadly force to stop a traffic violation

Answer: (C)

The key idea is limiting when deadly force can be used to stop a fleeing suspect. Tennessee v. Garner rejects the notion that the potential harm of letting a suspect escape justifies shooting, especially if the suspect is unarmed or not presenting an immediate threat. In practice, this rule applies to unarmed, non-dangerous suspects—deadly force isn’t justified merely to prevent their escape if they pose no imminent danger. It’s not about armed suspects, not about using deadly force in every situation, and not about stopping a traffic violation. Deadly force is permissible only when there is an imminent threat of serious harm to the officer or others.

The key idea is limiting when deadly force can be used to stop a fleeing suspect. Tennessee v. Garner rejects the notion that the potential harm of letting a suspect escape justifies shooting, especially if the suspect is unarmed or not presenting an immediate threat. In practice, this rule applies to unarmed, non-dangerous suspects—deadly force isn’t justified merely to prevent their escape if they pose no imminent danger. It’s not about armed suspects, not about using deadly force in every situation, and not about stopping a traffic violation. Deadly force is permissible only when there is an imminent threat of serious harm to the officer or others.