The court of appeals then reversed and remanded. The court's reasoning was
that the Tennessee statute failed to distinguish between different levels of
seriousness in felonies, and thus did not adequately limit the use of deadly
force. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Hymon was within the
scope of qualified immunity because he was acting under good faith in
accordance with the state statute; however, the court questioned whether a
city was entitled to such qualified immunity. The appeals court reasoned that
the killing of a fleeing suspect is a seizure under the fourth amendment and
must be reasonable. The Garner case was found to represent an unjustified use
of deadly force because to justify such an action, there must be probable
cause to believe that the suspect poses a serious threat if he escapes
capture. The court stated that "Officers cannot resort to deadly force unless
they "have probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony
and poses a threat to the safety of the officers or a danger to the community
if left at large."
下一段開頭說上訴後地方法院的判決被駁回
理由是田納西的法規沒有區分可用槍危險層級
接下來要打某些人臉的是 法院認為開槍警官的行為是在豁免範圍
因為他的行為是為善(because he was acting under good faith)
再來請看綠色的部分
然而 法院質疑一個城市能有上述的豁免權
接下來是解釋為什麼法院會質疑
上訴法院的理由是殺死一個逃跑的嫌犯是在第四修正案下的剝奪所以必須有合理的理由
(美國憲法第四修正案:任何公民的人身、住宅、文件和財產不受無理搜查和查封，沒有合理事實依據，不能簽發
搜查令和逮捕令，搜查令必須具體描述清楚要搜查的地點、需要搜查和查封的具體文件和
物品，逮捕令必須具體描述清楚要逮捕的人)
原址:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
再來是對本案的描述
在這案件中發現不合理使用致命武力的情況
因為要使用致命的武力必須要有相當理由相信逃跑的犯人有嚴重的威脅
法院指出"警官要只有在有相當理由相信嫌犯犯了重罪和對警官造成安全上的威脅
或是對大眾造成危險的情況下才能使用致命武力"
The opinion handed down by the high court said that if the suspect poses no
immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting
from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do
so.[xiii] However, the opinion continues: if the officer has probable cause
to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either
to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to
prevent escape by using deadly force.[xiv] Therefore, if the suspect
threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe
that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened
infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to
prevent escape.
第四頁講到判決結果 基本上跟前面差不多 就是沒有直接威脅不得用槍
可是後面的但書是 嫌犯只要讓警方有合理懷疑 (之前有人說一定要有強烈證明是錯的)
那在防止嫌犯逃逸時[若有必要時]得以使用槍械
先不說前面mrfreud大已經補充過了
（個人補充：proble cause＝「相當理由」是要高於「合理懷疑」的，
簡單來說，有罪判決→開槍→盤查，就是確切心證→相當理由→ 合理懷疑
有疑問的大可以查詢或問相關科系的朋友）
原址:#1DhU3kxK (HatePolitics)
第一段說高等法院的意見是如果沒有直接威脅就不能用致命武力
再來是綠色的部分
高等法院的意見繼續表示:如果警官有相當理由相信嫌犯會對警官或其他人造成嚴重威脅
沒有理由的用致命武力來防止嫌犯逃跑也是違憲的
因此如果嫌犯用武器恐嚇警官或是有相當理由相信嫌犯犯罪施加或是恐嚇嚴重的傷害才能
在必要的情況下用致命武力防止嫌犯逃跑
隨便看兩段就寫出這麼多 不過應該也夠了
首先
setzer大
你要跳針到別的案件另闢戰場無所謂
發文打自己臉也沒關係
但麻煩 翻譯不要只翻譯對自己有利的部分好嗎