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."
下一段开头说上诉后地方法院的判决被驳回
理由是田纳西的法规没有区分可用枪危险层级
接下来要打某些人脸的是 法院认为开枪警官的行为是在豁免范围
因为他的行为是为善(because he was acting under good faith)
再来请看绿色的部分
然而 法院质疑一个城市能有上述的豁免权
接下来是解释为什么法院会质疑
上诉法院的理由是杀死一个逃跑的嫌犯是在第四修正案下的剥夺所以必须有合理的理由
(美国宪法第四修正案:任何公民的人身、住宅、文件和财产不受无理搜查和查封，没有合理事实依据，不能签发
搜查令和逮捕令，搜查令必须具体描述清楚要搜查的地点、需要搜查和查封的具体文件和
物品，逮捕令必须具体描述清楚要逮捕的人)
原址:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
再来是对本案的描述
在这案件中发现不合理使用致命武力的情况
因为要使用致命的武力必须要有相当理由相信逃跑的犯人有严重的威胁
法院指出"警官要只有在有相当理由相信嫌犯犯了重罪和对警官造成安全上的威胁
或是对大众造成危险的情况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.
第四页讲到判决结果 基本上跟前面差不多 就是没有直接威胁不得用枪
可是后面的但书是 嫌犯只要让警方有合理怀疑 (之前有人说一定要有强烈证明是错的)
那在防止嫌犯逃逸时[若有必要时]得以使用枪械
先不说前面mrfreud大已经补充过了
（个人补充：proble cause＝“相当理由”是要高于“合理怀疑”的，
简单来说，有罪判决→开枪→盘查，就是确切心证→相当理由→ 合理怀疑
有疑问的大可以查询或问相关科系的朋友）
原址:#1DhU3kxK (HatePolitics)
第一段说高等法院的意见是如果没有直接威胁就不能用致命武力
再来是绿色的部分
高等法院的意见继续表示:如果警官有相当理由相信嫌犯会对警官或其他人造成严重威胁
没有理由的用致命武力来防止嫌犯逃跑也是违宪的
因此如果嫌犯用武器恐吓警官或是有相当理由相信嫌犯犯罪施加或是恐吓严重的伤害才能
在必要的情况下用致命武力防止嫌犯逃跑
随便看两段就写出这么多 不过应该也够了
首先
setzer大
你要跳针到别的案件另辟战场无所谓
发文打自己脸也没关系
但麻烦 翻译不要只翻译对自己有利的部分好吗