Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 Diploid
Cuban
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 14,201
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
 Supreme Court Backs Police Against Paralyzed Chase Victim
#6854415 - 04/30/07 02:48 PM (5 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
I don't like cops much, but I have to side with them in this case.
--
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Monday, April 30, 2007; 3:47 PM
WASHINGTON -- Police may use tactics that put fleeing suspects at risk of death to end high-speed car chases, the Supreme Court said Monday in ruling against a Georgia teenager who was paralyzed after his car was run off the road.
In a case that turned in part on a video of the chase in suburban Atlanta, the court said it is reasonable for law enforcement officers to try to stop a fleeing motorist to prevent harm to bystanders or other drivers.
"A police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death," Justice Antonin Scalia said in his majority opinion.
The court sided 8-1 with former Coweta County sheriff's deputy Timothy Scott, who rammed a fleeing black Cadillac on a two-lane, rain-slicked road in March 2001. The nighttime chase reached speeds of up to 90 miles an hour.
Victor Harris, the 19-year-old driver of the Cadillac, lost control and his car ended up at the bottom of an embankment. Harris was rendered a quadriplegic.
The court, in a nod to modern technology, for the first time posted the dramatic video on its Web site.
Many large police forces have strict rules for when officers can begin high-speed pursuit, limiting chases to instances where there has been a felony crime committed, a misdemeanor crime involving a weapon, or suspected drunken drivers who are an obvious road hazard.
Harris was wanted only for speeding.
Joshua Dressler, an Ohio State University law professor and expert on the Fourth Amendment, said he did not think that police would relax those policies. "The clear trend of police departments in major urban areas has been to limit police chases in general," Dressler said. "There have been so many injuries and deaths as a result of police chases and such great risk of harm to innocent bystanders."
More than 350 people died each year on average from 1994 to 2004 because of police chases, a group of Georgia police chiefs said in court papers in this case.
Yet officers now have less to fear from the tragic results of a car chase because of Monday's ruling, Dressler said. "This ruling may result in even faster chases and therefore perhaps increase the risk of harm not only to the speeder, but also innocent bystanders."
Innocent parties hurt in such incidents always have had a hard time winning lawsuits against police and Monday's decision will make their claims harder to prove, Dressler said.
Harris sued Scott after the crash, claiming the deputy's decision to ram the Cadillac violated Harris' Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure.
Lower federal courts ruled the lawsuit could proceed, but the Supreme Court said Monday that the officer could not be sued for his actions. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.
Scalia described a "Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury."
During oral argument, justices repeatedly invoked the video to support how recklessly they believed Harris was driving.
Stevens, however, said that a district court judge and three appellate judges who watched the same video concluded otherwise. Those judges determined the issue should be decided after a trial, not by a judge in a pretrial ruling.
In the courtroom, Stevens said that was preferable to the case "being decided by a group of elderly appellate judges," a reference to himself and his colleagues on the court. At 87, Stevens is the oldest justice.
In his written dissent, however, Stevens suggested his colleagues were too young to appreciate the situation.
"Had they learned to drive when most high-speed driving took place on two-lane roads rather than on superhighways...they might well have reacted to the videotape more dispassionately," he said.
Scalia said people could watch the tape and decide for themselves. "We are happy to allow the videotape to speak for itself," he said in a footnote that accompanied the ruling.
The case is Scott v. Harris, 05-1631.
--------------------
Wanna hear something depressing? One out of four Shroomerites wants to lock me in a government cage for using a substance they don't like.
Hard to believe, right? Read it for yourself:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7874721#Post7874721
|
Cowgold
Bullshit
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 12,462
Loc: .
|
 Re: Supreme Court Backs Police Against Paralyzed Chase Victim [Re: Diploid]
#6854980 - 04/30/07 06:13 PM (5 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
They shouldn't engage in stopping a vehicle over bullshit like speeding. Try to pull over? Yes. Wreck them? No.
BTW, was he wearing his seatbelt?
|
 jeverden
Mushroom Hunter
 
Registered: 05/10/06
Posts: 1,188
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Supreme Court Backs Police Against Paralyzed Chase Victim [Re: Cowgold]
#6858343 - 05/01/07 12:39 PM (5 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Here's the video on cnn. It can only be played once a day for some damn reason which is retarded but you can see once at least. Here's the link Video
Cowgold do you think they should have used force to stop this vechicle, because I do after watching the video. How pissed off would you be if one the red lights this driver ran through caused you to be a quadriplegic. He was reckless and a danger to other drivers on the road and could have easily caused injury or death. Even I know you don't run from the cops. Helicopters, radios, and an endless amount of cars to chase you = no escape. Hell you better off getting out and running on foot. I rarely support what the police do and I am not entirely sure they should have turned it into a highspeed chase, although the force they used I will say was justified.
--------------------
All of my posts are purely fictional and for hypothetical purposes.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,193
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 16 hours, 7 minutes
|
Re: Supreme Court Backs Police Against Paralyzed Chase Victim [Re: Cowgold]
#6858586 - 05/01/07 01:47 PM (5 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
> They shouldn't engage in stopping a vehicle over bullshit like speeding.
I disagree. The moment he runs from the police, he has become a danger to me and anybody else out on the street. The act of running from the police over bullshit like speeding turn something which is nothing into a huge issue; namely endangering my life while driving like a maniac to get away from the police (even if the police are not pursuing). He is putting the value of my life below the cost of a speeding ticket. People that run deserve to rot, in my opinion. Do what you want, but if/when the bill comes due, don't run like a coward.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 20,875
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 1 day, 2 hours
|
Re: Supreme Court Backs Police Against Paralyzed Chase Victim [Re: Seuss]
#6858634 - 05/01/07 01:58 PM (5 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
> They shouldn't engage in stopping a vehicle over bullshit like speeding.
I disagree. The moment he runs from the police, he has become a danger to me and anybody else out on the street. The act of running from the police over bullshit like speeding turn something which is nothing into a huge issue; namely endangering my life while driving like a maniac to get away from the police (even if the police are not pursuing). He is putting the value of my life below the cost of a speeding ticket. People that run deserve to rot, in my opinion. Do what you want, but if/when the bill comes due, don't run like a coward.
100% agreed.
--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway
If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy
He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
|
minesstudent
Who knows?
Registered: 12/12/05
Posts: 400
Last seen: 2 months, 4 days
|
Re: Supreme Court Backs Police Against Paralyzed Chase Victim [Re: Seuss]
#6858652 - 05/01/07 02:02 PM (5 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
I'm not sure, but once you start running aren't you committing a felony?
--------------------
"The universe is the way it is because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to talk about it"
|
Cowgold
Bullshit
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 12,462
Loc: .
|
Re: Supreme Court Backs Police Against Paralyzed Chase Victim [Re: Seuss]
#6858744 - 05/01/07 02:21 PM (5 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
> They shouldn't engage in stopping a vehicle over bullshit like speeding.
I disagree. The moment he runs from the police, he has become a danger to me and anybody else out on the street. The act of running from the police over bullshit like speeding turn something which is nothing into a huge issue; namely endangering my life while driving like a maniac to get away from the police (even if the police are not pursuing). He is putting the value of my life below the cost of a speeding ticket. People that run deserve to rot, in my opinion. Do what you want, but if/when the bill comes due, don't run like a coward.
I agree whole heartedly that people who run from police are endangering innocent people's lives and don't want anyone to think they can just run from the police and it be o.k. But, I know that people drive faster when chased leaving two vehicles hauling ass. Doubling the threat. The cop doesn't make you any safer, he adds to the danger. Until they come up with a safer/better alternative to the beloved car chase, they shouldn't do it.
If they couldn't chase vehicles they would find another way to stop them. That's what I want, a safer solution for the uninvolved public. I don't want criminals to get off easy.
The quadriplegic shouldn't get shit, but It's a shame that this could become a landmark case giving police more leeway (sp?) when a death occurs due to their poor judgment.
I bet you anything the sheriff would have been found guilty if an innocent bystander was paralyzed rather than the suspect.
Edited by Cowgold (05/01/07 02:28 PM)
|
Diploid
Cuban
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 14,201
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
 Re: Supreme Court Backs Police Against Paralyzed Chase Victim [Re: Cowgold]
#6859795 - 05/01/07 06:44 PM (5 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
How can the police know this guy didn't just kill someone and that's why he's running? I mean, most people don't run from the police unless they've done something illegal. When someone runs from the cops, it's a fair judgment that the runner is running for a reason other than trying to avoid a speeding ticket.
You seem to want the police to just let everyone go who refuses to stop. Would you also bitch at police incompetence if the guy turns out to be a psychopath who they let go because he ran, and later he kills your sister?
The police really suck sometimes, but fair is fair. You can't ask them to protect us from psychopaths and let runners who might or might not be psychopaths go at the same time.
--------------------
Wanna hear something depressing? One out of four Shroomerites wants to lock me in a government cage for using a substance they don't like.
Hard to believe, right? Read it for yourself:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7874721#Post7874721
|
Cowgold
Bullshit
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 12,462
Loc: .
|
Re: Supreme Court Backs Police Against Paralyzed Chase Victim [Re: Diploid]
#6861137 - 05/01/07 10:58 PM (5 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Calm down guy.
"If they couldn't chase vehicles they would find another way to stop them. That's what I want, a safer solution for the uninvolved public. I don't want criminals to get off easy."
What if a sociopath killed your sister? What if a sociopath killed your cat?
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,193
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 16 hours, 7 minutes
|
Re: Supreme Court Backs Police Against Paralyzed Chase Victim [Re: Diploid]
#6861681 - 05/02/07 02:55 AM (5 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
> Calm down guy.
Hehe... Diploid is a pretty calm guy. I think excitement, in this case, is in the eye of the reader. 
> If they couldn't chase vehicles they would find another way to stop them.
They are already working on various methods. One device, attached to the cop car, "shoots" the fleeing vehicle with high voltage causing it's electrical system to fry, killing most cars. Problem is cost, training, and it doesn't always work.
They also tried to get the automakers to put a kill switch that police could activate remotely into cars. The public, and automakers, refused to let this happen. People are tired of living in a police state, and even when something makes a bit of sense, if it takes away from people's freedom to help the police, the people won't stand for it. Welcome to yet another consequence of the war on drugs.
> it's a fair judgment that the runner is running for a reason other than trying to avoid a speeding ticket
To me, it doesn't matter. The act of running, at least in a vehicle, is an unacceptable act that great endangers the public safety in a manner that can easily result in the death of an innocent. In my mind, police chases are justified, not because the person might have a dead body in their trunk, but because they are endangering the lives of others in an attempt to escape.
> What if a sociopath killed your sister? What if a sociopath killed your cat?
I am missing something; what does this have to do with police chases? I'm certain you have a point, but I don't see it... (I'm not trying to be an ass)
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
Diploid
Cuban
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 14,201
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
 Re: Supreme Court Backs Police Against Paralyzed Chase Victim [Re: Seuss]
#6861981 - 05/02/07 07:20 AM (5 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
What if a sociopath killed your sister? What if a sociopath killed your cat?
I think this was meant as a joke, but just in case it's not:
In a very upset voice: Hey! You better just leave my cat out of this! 
--------------------
Wanna hear something depressing? One out of four Shroomerites wants to lock me in a government cage for using a substance they don't like.
Hard to believe, right? Read it for yourself:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/7874721#Post7874721
|
Cowgold
Bullshit
Registered: 04/04/05
Posts: 12,462
Loc: .
|
Re: Supreme Court Backs Police Against Paralyzed Chase Victim [Re: Seuss]
#6862004 - 05/02/07 07:30 AM (5 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
It was just in reference to this...
"Would you also bitch at police incompetence if the guy turns out to be a psychopath who they let go because he ran, and later he kills your sister?", said Diploid.
There wasn't really a point except why would we want to think about our sister getting killed? I threw the cat in for extra measure.
I don't really have a solution. I just wanted to make the point that if you're stopping the car because he's a danger to everyone else on the road then that's ridiculous because once the chase starts it gets worse. We need a better solution and it can be done without losing our rights and libirties.
Finger pointing has always bothered me because it should be pretty obvious who screwed up. The guy ran and being a quadrapalegic is the result. Noone else to blame. This case shouldn't be a landmark.
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: veggie
1,505 topic views. 5 members, 32 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
