Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the constitutional limits on the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers. The Court held that the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an unarmed fleeing suspect is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
In the scenario you provided, a private armed security guard shoots a robbery suspect as they were jumping over a fence. It is essential to note that the Tennessee v. Garner case specifically concerns law enforcement officers, not private security guards. However, the principles established in this case could still be relevant to private security personnel, as many states regulate the use of force by private security guards based on similar standards.
If the security guard shot the suspect without a reasonable belief that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to themselves or others, they could potentially face criminal charges such as assault, battery, or even manslaughter or murder, depending on the circumstances and the outcome of the shooting. Additionally, the security guard could face civil liability for the injuries or wrongful death caused by their actions.
As for the employer of the security guard, they might also face civil liability for the actions of their employee under the legal principle of vicarious liability. Employers can be held responsible for the wrongful acts of their employees if the acts are committed within the scope of their employment. The employer could potentially be sued for negligence in hiring, training, or supervising the security guard.