Comments on: Court Sides With Cops On High-Speed Chase

Supreme Court Rejects Arguments Of Man Paralyzed in Crash Stemming From Police Pursuit

[cbville72]

I want you people, particularly you republicans, to think about something. A fundamental fundament of jurdictional jurisprudence:

I take it that 3rd grade is as far as you made it in school my friend. No doubt it was racism that made you stop going to school. Down with whitey right? YOu make no sense and only advertise your lack of intelligence by posting.

[hawksprings]

This was the right call by the justices, way to go!

When the shiny lights come on, you're supposed to pull over and stop.

The cop's tactic of nudging the rear of the suspects car is a common one. The cop had no idea the car would hit a pole and paralyze the kid, and no way of predicting it would happen.

Tough break kid. You should have pulled over.

...

[susanhelit]

Ah, the classic - innocent until proven guilty.

Harris was proven guilty. He had a trial, and was convicted for what he did (IIRC). But in this case, it's the officer who is the defendant - he's being sued. So, he should be the one innocent until proven guilty. Oops!

And I'm the furthest thing from a Republican - but the Constitution does not say we have to entertain even visibly and obviously false lawsuits, judges are not supposed to let people be harassed by a lawsuit that has no grounds - as this one does not.

[mklapp]

The officer in question could not sue because reporting on a trial is progress is protected. Not because Everyone knows the truth already. Even Saddam got a trial.

[susanhelit]

He ran from the police. He did so in such a way to seriously endanger the public. They used the necessary force to stop him from hurting the public. That's all.

Then he tried to sue, saying that he wasn't dangerous at all. The courts said - 1. Police are allowed to stop you when you are dangerous, even if it might hurt you, and 2. The video clearly shows you were dangerous, so no go on the lawsuit.

[dowjones20k]

Posted by mklapp ..... The court did not say this guy was right or wrong. It said no jury can ever sit in judgment of any policeman. Are you really comfortable with that?

*****

Actually the SC said " officers can take measures to stop the car without putting themselves at risk of civil rights lawsuits".

That is all they ajudicated .... Policeman can stop a fleeing suspect without worrying that the scum bag will turn around and sue them for paralyzing themsleves out of stupidity.

[booyaw_77]

The devil is on my side.

[lawandorder6]

Yes you are sick. booyaw_77 go away, sick, sick, sick. You need help. BAD!!!!!!!!!!!

[booyaw_77]

I want you people, particularly you republicans, to think about something. A fundamental fundament of jurdictional jurisprudence: "Presumption of innocence". So.. sick are you to the american dream. So disparaged your souls, that you declare wars on people who did nothing wrong to you. That you find yourselves angry at the whole world. The only sane ones..

Get out of my government and don't ever come back again.

[lawandorder6]

Does any one know what the h--l he/she is talking about. booyaw_77 you are a little off of it, right?