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

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

[susanhelit]

Driving that way is the equivalent of running down the street, shooting a gun, randomly. You may hit no one. But you are endangering everyone. And the police have to stop you, period. Doesn't matter what crime, or even if it was no crime that you did before you started running along firing that gun. Running along, firing the gun is the crime.

The court got it right - read their opinion. Not only is this guy a danger to any innocent who might come into the path (and people running from the cops don't stop running when the police stop chasing), but saying that we'll let you go if you endanger a few lives - crank the speed up to 90, weave into opposing traffic, blow a few stoplights - that's a pretty clear message to criminals what to do.

The criminal who is running is at fault, entirely. This could have been ended anytime, by pulling over. This could have been a safe chase - drive the speed limit, and they won't need to hit your car. But it wasn't, and Harris, and only Harris made that choice.

[justfacts2]

Maybe I missed something or I didn't read the article clearly enough. The person who is suing and is paralyzed, was he the one the cops were trying to catch? Or was he an innocent bystander that the cop decided to ram off the road to get out of the way? If it is the latter, than this is just absurd! It makes me shudder to think what in the world the cops are going to do now that the courts have ruled in their favor. If the guy paralyzed is who the cops were chasing then he shouldn't have tried to outrun the cops in the first place.

[toolmangler-2009]

Posted by mklapp at 06:05 PM : Apr 30, 2007


I am not sure I read you right but if I did, George Orwell wrote about that some time ago. Its called "1984" (ckeck out "Animal Farm" by the same guy, most enlightening (Southern fer educational).

[mklapp]

The issue is not whether it is ever permissible for police to summarily execute an extra-judicial sentence upon a suspect in the field. It is whether, upon exercising such judgement, the suspect is entitled to a day in court regarding the suitability of such a summary judgement.

The disturbing element here is the court's overwhelming agreement that no,as citizens we are not entitled to a day in court. In fact, the court is moving toward declaring open season upon citizen suspects. Not only may our property be permanently confiscated for the offense of becoming a suspect (or even knowing a suspect), but we are closing in on the premise that we may be summarily executed without a trial.

Let me repeat that. This is not about whether it is ever permissible to do such a thing. It is about whether there are ever any consequences when the police substitute their judgement for a judge and jury. Apparently the prevailing thought supports summary execution of a man rushing an expectant wife or poisoned child to the hospital. This ruling says no officer or jurisdiction may ever be sued for or otherwise enjoined from this type of behavior.

Once more for ditto heads: citizen complaints against abusive authorities can not be heard in court. Only the officer's story is sufficient to pass judgement. No more due process, like Saddam's Iraq and Nazi Germany.

This is one more blow against the presumption of innocence and a civil society based on laws and human right.

Sheesh!

[booyaw_77]

You guys just like the teevee show. Buncha masochists.

[anderstine]

The police would not have goveners on their motors, making the stop much easer.

[haneyr-2009]

Be careful Anderstine, you are going down the slippery path when you try to use personal ideals to qualify legal actions.

In your case you want to further limit the actions of police officers in pursuing criminals.

Murderers should be pursued you say. What if he is a drug dealer and kills another drug dealer? I might suggest this is not really a murder but a quick delivery of justice. So it's OK for him to speed so the other drug dealers don't catch him.

Bank robbers are really bad. They steal money from an FDIC bank and that is not good. So let's chase him really fast and maybe he can crash so a lot of innocent bystanders can help collect the loose change lying on the street and in his car.

Terrorists should be caught no matter what. Do they have to be ones that killed someone or robbed a bank? What if they only think they want to be a terrorist and drive around with a ton of dynamite in the car, but then change their minds on the way to the school?

How would we know them if we saw them speeding 93 MPH in a 55 MPH zone with several police cars chasing them? How about if we pass a law that says a criminal has to stop first and tell the police what they did wrong and then they can start the high speed chase?

News report to criminals. If you don't commit one of the rules for a high speed chase, put a sign on your car saying so and drive as fast as you want. And hope that while you are driving that non-lethal car at 93 MPH you don't break rule 1.

[booyaw_77]

"Sure and by the time a helicopter was called (if one was available) how many innocent people might of been killed."

Sirens blaring, tires squeeling, WHATS HE RUNNING FOR? I know yaz ain't short'a tax money.. so it can't be that yer calling a "high speed chase" professional.

[vidman6]

I Hit a cop once after he cut me off illegally, but the court sided with the cop (of course). His cam didn't catch enough of the angle to see my car. They need even more cameras in their cars.

My brother saw a cop cause a pileup of over 4 cars once (the cop was the initial blow and it smashed 4 cars together) and I wouldn't doubt if some of them got hurt. It was a high speed chase on city streets.

Yes we need a camera on their helmets too, make em all wide angle. If their camera is not on and someone has a lawsuit then the cop should be held responsible.

[pared1]

Nowadays we got helicopters and stuff like that, that eases the lunatics mind long enough to bag him. Peacefully.
Posted by booyaw_77 at 05:49 PM : Apr 30, 2007


Sure and by the time a helicopter was called (if one was available) how many innocent people might of been killed.

[booyaw_77]

It doesn't surprise me that this supreme court messes up the rules of engagement.

[anderstine]

I'm in favor of governers on all auto engines that do not allow your car to go faster than the top speed of our highways 65mph (here in Oregon). That would help lotz. There is also the goofy video games and movies that promote the highspeed use of cars! And the promotionl aspect of car chase TV shows!

[booyaw_77]

"If you're driving at a reckless speed "YOU" are the one responsible for your actions."

In the 21st century there's other ways besides the dumbazzzzzed high speed nascar driver play'n demolition derby. Nowadays we got helicopters and stuff like that, that eases the lunatics mind long enough to bag him. Peacefully.

[pared1]

If you're driving at a reckless speed "YOU" are the one responsible for your actions.

[booyaw_77]

"They need to be thanked for their bravery."

Doesn't sound very professional to me. This ain't no god damned Clint Eastwood movie, jackie. Real cops ain't gotta be thanked by nobody. They take their pay? They do their job? And they go home and raise their families. Leave the thank'n to the movie stars and the politicians.

[toolmangler-2009]

Posted by UnderMyBoot at 03:54 PM : Apr 30, 2007

That is the most stupid sounding thing I have heard. If you want less crime and more real jutice, start telling the authorities where to find these people before they get on the roads at high-speed. Nah, to use your vernacular "Y'ALL aint no snitch, you won't drop a dime on a real "sh-- --ad" who is probably bangin' yo sis or pumpin' her full. quit stepping on the only people "you" pay to take a bullet for you here at home. Just like all other things man attempts to do, crime prevention has its problems but half of them would disappear if John Q Citizen would step up instead of cuttin' out.

[fiteit1]

No person fleeing from the police should be able to sue. Anyone entering your property and get hurt shouldn't be able to sue, an intruder that gets a baseball bat upside the head shouldn't be able to sue. The cops (intruders) that shot that 92-year old lady should be sued and loose their job as should the higher ups that Okayed such a search without substantiating the informant. Innocent bystanders that get hurt or killed should be able to sue both the fleeing person and the cops, running from the cops is not innocent.

Police in pursuit have two choices, continue to chase or back off and get them the next time. That choice can only be made by the officer and his or her surrounding environment, city streets, country roads, or freeways, how much congestion or how many pedestrians, how many other officers can get in front of the chase, spike strips, helicopters. We can judge from the comfort of our living rooms while we wait on dinner to be served, they can%u2019t.

The only thing that the innocent have to fall back on to is try not to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and be able to be awarded a very large lump sum from the pursuer and pursued.

[anderstine]

Any time there is a high speed chase. It had better be a murder or a bank robber or a terrorist otherwise now the cops are breaking the law. Too many times police get emotionally involved with a chase. Not good in any situation, ever!

[haneyr-2009]

Once again CBS has given only enough info from their prospective to let their blog sites be clogged up with people making totally uninformed statements.

To the person still living under his boot, you need to crawl out from under there and wipe the dirt from your eyes, ears, and mouth. You are obviously a well educated person (disregarding your command of the English language) who has spent a great deal of his time wanting (whining??) to know why you aren't taken seriously by anyone above the level of a GED education.

Driving 93 MPH in a two ton block of metal in a manner that is intended to elude someone else is endangering lives no matter where that is happening. Next I suppose it will be OK if someone walks down a street with a shotgun and shoots it at buildings. They are not shooting at people so its OK not to shoot them first.

When the guilty of our society begin to control our actions then it is they who will be coming into our houses to eat our food because the police will be sitting in the station waiting for bad guys to voluntarilly come and give themselves up. After all why should they risk their lives for people who don't want to be saved.

[tps25pentium]

You wouldn't side that kid if he drove over your loved one during that chase. A car at dangerous speeds is almost like a weapon of mass destruction. It contains flammable gasoline under pressure; a ticking time bomb. The cops saved the community and innocent civilians from a criminal who could have killed many innocent and law-abiding citizens. They need to be thanked for their bravery.