"Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from the failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so"
About this Quote
A sentence like this is law pretending to be simple English, and that’s part of its power: it smuggles a moral boundary into a clinical test. Byron White isn’t waxing philosophical; he’s building a restraint mechanism. The line draws a bright premise - no immediate threat - and then refuses the emotional shortcut that often follows a fleeing suspect: the idea that escape itself becomes a kind of violence that authorizes lethal response.
The craft is in the balancing act. “Immediate threat” sets a high bar and anchors the analysis in present danger, not speculative fear or bruised authority. “No threat to others” widens the lens beyond the officer’s adrenaline to the public interest, signaling that policing is not a private contest of will. Then comes the quiet pivot: “the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him.” White concedes what departments and prosecutors always insist on - that letting someone get away has costs - but he demotes those costs. The subtext is blunt: the state’s embarrassment, frustration, or inconvenience is not worth a human life.
Contextually, this sits in the constitutional project of modern use-of-force doctrine, especially the Supreme Court’s effort in the 1980s to curb the old “fleeing felon” rule that treated flight as permission to shoot. White’s intent is not to romanticize suspects; it’s to discipline state power. The sentence insists that legitimacy comes not from winning every chase, but from choosing not to kill when killing isn’t necessary.
The craft is in the balancing act. “Immediate threat” sets a high bar and anchors the analysis in present danger, not speculative fear or bruised authority. “No threat to others” widens the lens beyond the officer’s adrenaline to the public interest, signaling that policing is not a private contest of will. Then comes the quiet pivot: “the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him.” White concedes what departments and prosecutors always insist on - that letting someone get away has costs - but he demotes those costs. The subtext is blunt: the state’s embarrassment, frustration, or inconvenience is not worth a human life.
Contextually, this sits in the constitutional project of modern use-of-force doctrine, especially the Supreme Court’s effort in the 1980s to curb the old “fleeing felon” rule that treated flight as permission to shoot. White’s intent is not to romanticize suspects; it’s to discipline state power. The sentence insists that legitimacy comes not from winning every chase, but from choosing not to kill when killing isn’t necessary.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|---|
| Source | Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), majority opinion by Justice Byron R. White — contains the passage limiting deadly force where "the suspect poses no immediate threat" (constitutional holding on use of deadly force to prevent escape). |
More Quotes by Byron
Add to List








