In the case of Tennessee vs. Garner, what did the Supreme Court rule regarding the use of deadly physical force?

The Supreme Court's ruling in Tennessee vs. Garner established significant legal standards regarding the use of deadly physical force by law enforcement. Specifically, the decision determined that police officers may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless there is a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. This ruling emphasizes the need for a clear and present danger before such lethal measures can be justified.

This is particularly important as it aligns with the principles of protecting human life and ensuring that the use of force is proportional to the threat posed by the suspect. The case set a precedent that prioritizes de-escalation and the necessity of a justifiable reason for the use of deadly force, rather than allowing officers to use such force solely based on the act of a person fleeing, regardless of the nature of their perceived crime.

This context helps to clarify why the other options do not align with the Supreme Court's ruling. For example, suggesting that deadly force is permissible simply because a suspect is armed does not take into account the context of the situation and the immediate threat posed. Similarly, allowing its use to prevent escape from any crime ignores the critical consideration of whether the suspect poses a danger to others at that moment.