Supreme Court to review High Speed Chases

[wiffleball 4,797]

I saw this on the news this weekend. I imagine you kids with all your intenets savvy can go that there 'bugle' site and look it up.

 

 

Long story short, guy leads cops on an extended 100+ mph high speed chase. At varying times, he's driving into the oncoming lane and/or at cops along the way.

 

Soo, eventually one of the cops 'bump' him, he loses control, crashes his stolen vehicle and becomes a paralegal.

 

Now, he's suing for excessive force. And he's won all along the way. So now the Supreme Court is involved.

 

His jagoff lawyer is saying "he never had any history of violent crime, he shouldn't be paralyzed for simple vehicular offenses".

 

To my way of thinking, another 3 minutes and the guy runs into (or over) someone and kills them, it's suddently a different story. Cops would be justified in shooting a guy who was firiing his pistol randomly in a crowded mall, WTF is any different with pointing a deadly weapon like a speeding vehicle at innocent people?

[TK0001 99]

I say if you run, excessive force should be automatically authorized.

[davebg 0]

The Pussification of America - Rule #163: It's not enough to use the unbalanced scales of justice to escape responsibility for a crime. You must also sue for damages as a result of other people performing their job of protecting the public from your knuckleheaded exploits.

[Recidivist 1]

You shouldn't try to outrun the cops unless you're driving a faster car than they are.

 

HTH

[wiffleball 4,797]

Seriously, if it's a choice between innocent people being at risk of being hit by an out of control car going 100 mph or a hellfire missile up the guy's tailpipe, so be it. Take him out hard and fast. Wouldn't take much more than a few of these to end the 'high speed pursuit' as we know it.

 

Sorry, your initial offense may be no big deal, but now you're hurtling 1,000 lbs of metal at 100 mph down highways and neighborhoods. If you hit somebody it's vehicular homicide, so putting people at risk is then at least attempted murder. - And we have the right to fry you before you kill someone.

[Rusty Syringes 478]

I'm in high-speed pursuit of your pooper.

[wiffleball 4,797]

I'm in high-speed pursuit of your pooper.

 

 

Well then, send your habenero-fire missle up my tailpipe before I rear-end someone!

[TimmySmith 2,783]

All the Supreme Court can do is decide when or if it is legally justifiable for a police officer to ram you with his vehicle. Perhaps their decision will save the life of somebody who is unlucky enough to walk in front a police car who is chasing down somebody for lifting a bag of Doritos from 7-11.

[redtodd 7]

Cops should have a Spy Hunter missle in their cars and blow you up if you try and take off.

[parrot 789]

Perhaps their decision will save the life of somebody who is unlucky enough to walk in front a police car who is chasing down somebody for lifting a bag of Doritos from 7-11.

 

While I don't have much sympathy for this guy or how he ended up, we need to be able to count on the police to use a level of discretion that doesn't put the public unnecessarily at risk. Often it is the chase that puts the public at more risk than anything and the police would be better served to just break it off and hope to catch up with the guy another day.

[GettnHuge 2]

I'm with the victim on this one.

ramming a vehicle of a suspect is attack with a deadly weapon and way over the line.

[Trip McNeely 0]

 

Soo, eventually one of the cops 'bump' him, he loses control, crashes his stolen vehicle and becomes a paralegal.

 

 

 

so he got hurt and then started working at a law firm?

[joneo 562]

I'm with the victim on this one.

ramming a vehicle of a suspect is attack with a deadly weapon and way over the line.

 

 

Set the drag, you're bound to get a big one.

 

 

Soo, eventually one of the cops 'bump' him, he loses control, crashes his stolen vehicle and becomes a paralegal.

 

 

So, the guy crashes and the attorney's office gives him a job?

[wiffleball 4,797]

took you guys long enough to pick up on that....

[Bill E. 703]

Perhaps their decision will save the life of somebody who is unlucky enough to walk in front a police car who is chasing down somebody for lifting a bag of Doritos from 7-11.

 

or perhaps their decision will end the life of sombody that will be shot by the criminal that the police are no longer allowed to chase.

[Riddlen 1]

was the driver black?

[gocolts 300]

I can't belive someone has not come up with a safe way to make these guys stop their car.

 

I'm thinking of something you can shhot at the car and it sticks to the car and completly shorts out the cars entire electrical system. Or something that when attached to a car, throws the transmission into neutral or park. Like a very small EMP bomb that only kills the electrical systems in a 10 foot circle.

[itsbigmoni 1]

I don't see why they can't use a helicopter to follow. I'm sure there are cases where chases happen way out in the cuts in some country town that doesn't have a copter but in situations where the police force has one, they could just use those.

 

I wish the courts had more discretion though. I don't think the cops/city should be held responsible for following standard procedure for probably just about every police department. If they could say, yea, you raise a good point, police procedure should be reformed, but this p.d. is not guilty.

[Vikings4ever 568]

I don't see why they can't use a helicopter to follow. I'm sure there are cases where chases happen way out in the cuts in some country town that doesn't have a copter but in situations where the police force has one, they could just use those.

 

I wish the courts had more discretion though. I don't think the cops/city should be held responsible for following standard procedure for probably just about every police department. If they could say, yea, you raise a good point, police procedure should be reformed, but this p.d. is not guilty.

1. It's not like the cops have helicopters constantly up in the air. If they can't chase the guy on the ground, he'll disappear long before a copter can get up and find him.

 

2. Are they going to land the copter when the car runs out of gas? If not, how are they supposed to catch the guy when the police on the ground can't chase him?

[Bill E. 703]

I can't belive someone has not come up with a safe way to make these guys stop their car.

 

 

 

I guess I do not feel like there needs to be a safe way to stop stupid focks that want to run from the police. If you run, you risk getting killed. With these kinds of decisions we are saying to these people that once you get to your car, run like hell and you are home free.

[wiffleball 4,797]

The USSC has had a pretty good recent track record of siding with law enforcement. It's stupid to say that cops can't pursue a subject - that they should just let them go because they might hurt somebody. - That'd encourage every jagoff to run from the cops.

 

Blaming the cops b/c the bad guy started running and killed/hurt himself or somebody else is retarded. The causitive factor is the criminal. His choice to break the law, his choice to run from the law. At any point, the criminal has every opportunity to safely pull over. Agreed, technology and choppers should be used as often as possible.

 

 

And, at the time, you don't know whether the guy is running because he killed 33 people, or b/c he stole a pack of bubble-yum. I damn sure don't want our courts prosecuting the good guys for pursuing the bad guys. - And I sure don't want to encourage the bad guys to speed away b/c they know the cops won't pursue.

[parrot 789]

Blaming the cops b/c the bad guy started running and killed/hurt himself or somebody else is retarded. The causitive factor is the criminal. His choice to break the law, his choice to run from the law. At any point, the criminal has every opportunity to safely pull over.

I wouldn't blame the cops because the criminal started to run, I would blame them for continuing to chase him once he ran and it became clear that chasing him was only exacerbating the situation. The criminal has pretty much one concern, himself. The police have other concerns and duties, including one known as protecting and serving the public. Unless the perpetrator is a known dangerous offender, then chasing him at high speeds through crowded streets quite likely creates a situation more dangerous to the public than making a reasonable attempt to get a license number and trying to catch up to him another time, or simply letting him go.

 

 

And, at the time, you don't know whether the guy is running because he killed 33 people, or b/c he stole a pack of bubble-yum.

That could be why I used the term "discretion" - there are certainly some people who need to be chased, but often these chases just take a bad situation and make it worse.

[Strike 5,975]

I wouldn't blame the cops because the criminal started to run, I would blame them for continuing to chase him once he ran and it became clear that chasing him was only exacerbating the situation. The criminal has pretty much one concern, himself. The police have other concerns and duties, including one known as protecting and serving the public. Unless the perpetrator is a known dangerous offender, then chasing him at high speeds through crowded streets quite likely creates a situation more dangerous to the public than making a reasonable attempt to get a license number and trying to catch up to him another time, or simply letting him go.

That could be why I used the term "discretion" - there are certainly some people who need to be chased, but often these chases just take a bad situation and make it worse.

 

I agree that the police should use discretion. However, I don't think we should ever allow the person running to sue. If an innocent person is hurt and the police have made an error in judgement by all means that person should be able to sue. But not the idiot running.

[parrot 789]

I agree that the police should use discretion. However, I don't think we should ever allow the person running to sue. If an innocent person is hurt and the police have made an error in judgement by all means that person should be able to sue. But not the idiot running.

I agree. Fock this kid. You don't run from the cops. And the more restrictions we put on the ability of the police to give chase, the penalties for running for should get steeper and steeper as well.

[wiffleball 4,797]

Can't believe we can't leverage off the whole roadside bomb / IED craze. Fock the spike strips.

[itsbigmoni 1]

1. It's not like the cops have helicopters constantly up in the air. If they can't chase the guy on the ground, he'll disappear long before a copter can get up and find him.

 

2. Are they going to land the copter when the car runs out of gas? If not, how are they supposed to catch the guy when the police on the ground can't chase him?

 

 

You can give chase at first and keep the guy in site so you can tell the copter where to go. Then backoff and let the copter follow from there. Put some cops along some "check points" that you think he'll cross. You'd want cops near him because if he runs out of gas, you don't want him to be able to run and get away before cops can get there. But if there are no cops chasing the guy running, i doubt he'll drive as reckless.

[Bill E. 703]

You can give chase at first and keep the guy in site so you can tell the copter where to go. Then backoff and let the copter follow from there. Put some cops along some "check points" that you think he'll cross. You'd want cops near him because if he runs out of gas, you don't want him to be able to run and get away before cops can get there. But if there are no cops chasing the guy running, i doubt he'll drive as reckless.

 

..or you could just bump his sorry ass down a ravine.