Summary Of The 1989 Case Of Dethorne Graham

The 1989 case of Graham v. Connor follows the story of Dethorne Graham, and his interaction with a City of Charlotte police officer, M.S. Connor, and how the actions taken by Connor on the day in question had violated the fourteenth amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses. While police presence and involvement in our communities is vital to the success of a community, the infringement of an individual's rights based upon presumption without reason stands to be an incredible threat to liberty. Connor’s use of excessive force in the detainment of Graham. This case is a strong one for the reform of police protocol, as well as for the protocol for excessive force, and the reasonable person standard. The decision of this case is attributed

Garner. In this 1985 case, the court held that the use of excessive force during an arrest is unlawful unless the Fourth Amendment's reasonable person standard can be used to infer that there is “probable cause to believe the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others' ' (Tennessee v. Gitter). This holding is incredibly crucial to the case of Dethorne Graham considering he was unarmed. The events leading up to Graham’s arrest are unclear however they present as the following. Graham was said to be resisting arrest, to which the officers responded by slamming Graham's head into his friend's car, from which he sustained head and shoulder industries—which is a clear show of excessive force. A reasonable person would infer that with the provided information of Graham being a diabetic experiencing some sort of medical episode that it would in fact not be his intent to resist arrest but instead a plea for help. He also sustained a broken foot and lacerations around his wrist before being grabbed by all four limbs and tossed in the squad car by the officers (Jad Abumrad, Reasonable Man, More Perfect Podcast). The important thing to note in this case was Graham’s lack of violent action, not only did he not possess a weapon, but he also made no threats of causing harm to anyone: to which a reasonable person would argue is grounds for using an excessive display of force. In specific this excerpt from the archive