Talk:Tennessee v. Garner

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Tennessee Mid‑importance

	Tennessee portal Tennessee v. Garner is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Garner's age[edit]

How about including somewhere in there that the victim Garner, was only an eigth grader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.72.123 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was with you, in fact, I'm reading the opinion now, and I was going to edit to mention it. But in thinking about it, I guess it's not notable. It doesn't seem relevant, when the cops testified he seemed 17 or 18. It's sad and refretable that he was only an eighth grader, even if he was 15 years old.Ratherthanlater (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an important fact to mention. I have written a sentence stating that the police believed him to be 17-18 and that he was in fact 15 years old. NW (Talk) 03:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the officer?[edit]

While I agree with the decision to the extent that deadly force should not be used unless there is reasonable belief the subject constitutes an immediate danger, it also seems to me to be unfair to punish the officer for acting in accordance with state statute and department policy in existence at the time. In fact, to do so would seem to me to be an ex post facto law. We the officer punished in any way? Wschart (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind a reply nearly three years later: according to this article[1], the answer is no, the officer was never charged. Robofish (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Impact?[edit]

Following the controversial usage of deadly force in Ferguson, MO there has been talk about amending deadly force laws to follow the SCOTUS decision in Tennessee v Garner. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/01/missouri-use-of-force-laws/19731233/ Also a connection to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force#Legal_opinions would be appropriate. 67.171.68.186 (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Police shot a black man in the back[edit]

There was a incident where a police had shot a black man in the back, and then went and plant a gun next to him and say that the guy had drawed a gun on him. What we found out after the investigation is: guy didn't have no gun. Police just shot a man cold blood.[2] --2001:4898:80E8:ED31:0:0:0:2 (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? How does this relate to the article? Primium mobile (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]