Police Chase Ethics Reach Supreme Court

Video of a police chase that left a Georgia teenager paralyzed — the "scariest chase I've seen since 'The French Connection,"' one Supreme Court justice said — played a key role Monday in arguments over the actions of a sheriff's deputy.

A camera in the dashboard of the police cruiser that rammed Victor Harris's black Cadillac captured the sickening moment when Harris lost control and veered off the road and down an embankment.

Harris sued former Coweta County Sheriff's deputy Timothy Scott, accusing the deputy of violating his civil rights. The court is deciding whether the lawsuit can proceed in its first case in 20 years on police use of deadly force to stop fleeing suspects.

Several justices showed a close interest in the chase that preceded the crash, with an eye toward justifying Scott's action as reasonable to prevent injury to other drivers and pedestrians.

Justice Antonin Scalia referred to "The French Connection," the 1971 Oscar-winning movie with one of Hollywood's classic police pursuits. "It is frightening," he said of the Georgia video.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Harris was endangering lives by fleeing from the police. "Anyone who has watched that tape has got to come to that conclusion, looking at the road and the way that this car was swerving, and the cars coming in the opposite direction. This was a situation fraught with danger," she said.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[sirbass73]

You think the job is easy? You think we should enforce some laws and let others slide? Maybe we should let the burglers keep breaking into homes to fuel their drug habits so they can drive impaired and not worry about them untill they have slaughtered an entire family. We dont have the choice of which laws to enforce and which to let slide. ALL laws are to be enforced with equal vigulance. When the stupid 19 year old ADULT ran from the police he commited a FELONY. If he had stopped it would have been a ticket plain and simple. But he decided to commit a felony by eluding and fleeing from a traffic stop that was caught on camera. If an officer could read the mind of said criminal then things might be diffrent. Would this ADULT have slowed down if police had backed off? I SERIOUSLY doubt it. He was already running from a SPEEDING ticket. In EVERY state of this union at 18 someone is classified as an ADULT. Not a child.

[newton221]

EXACTLY!!! Well said. However i promise a little common sense is way to much to ask from most of these jerk offs with a badge.

[bobnjersey]

[The person running is to blame, for all of it. He's lucky he merely paralyzed himself, rather than killing himself or, worse, killing someone else! ]

well ... that's your opinion ... and you know what they say about those.

there are many 'famous' cases just like this one where the infraction is minor ... the police pursue ... everyone takes it up a notch ... and when all is said and done ... the cops overreact and people get killed ... or severely injured ... by the cops!

you've got your one little story to tell ... he didn't slow down. this happens every day ... and despite what you say ... many police jurisdictions have figured it out already ... it goes like this:

IT AINT WORTH THE COST IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG.

if nobody is chasing you ... what would anybody be trying to get away from ... as you say ... they don't slow down.

should the cops just start shooting at the car if the surrounding area is clear? how about a rocket propelled grenade ... that would stop him ... let the cops decide when it's ok to use.

yea, right!

[newton221]

Yeah thats the catch 22. If felons know that the police cant pursue them. Then obviously they are going to create a dangerous situation in order to try to get away. More incentive to run so to speak. I dont know how to respond to that right now. I will think about it.

[newton221]

Actually 1 more point. Just speaking to this case alone. You make some good points but you are talking about hard core felons with guns and warants. This was just a stupid 19 year old kid trying to outrun the cops. He more than likely would have slowed down once he thought he had.

[susanhelit]

Likewise - I can respect yours, and disagree with you. I just don't respect people who run. To me, the teenager got what he was willing to deal out to others. Running away, risking killing other people, just to dodge a ticket - that's just insanely selfish, almost sociopathic.

I'm not all pro-police, but to me, if they stop chasing when someone does something dangerous, that tells every single druggie, criminal, whatever to just start driving crazy when the police try to pull them over, and they can get away with it.

[newton221]

I do sincerely believe that the suspect and the police both made bad decisions. But thats just one persons opinion. Nice talking to you Susan.

[susanhelit]

Heck if I know why someone would drive 100 mph even with the police in persuit! That's no excuse!

Heck, didn't he see OJ?


But they do keep driving nuts even after the police back off. 3 dead children can't testify to this. He's made a choice to fire his gun randomly - should the police just back off, and see if he might quit firing if they aren't there? Or should they figure it's not OK to endanger the public that way, when they have an opportunity to stop him right now? He's driving nuts, to get away from the police - when they are no longer visible, often the suspect does a few even crazier moves, to try to lose them all the way, or assuming they're being watched from else where.

[newton221]

I respect your opinion. You make a very good point Susan. I just happen to disagree with you. This is a controversial case. Hence the Supreme Court involvement.

[susanhelit]

The police made the right choice, the teen made the wrong one. He chose to run, and drive dangerously, in such a way that he threatened the lives of everyone else on the road.

The officers made a consensus choice that they needed to stop this danger to the community, and they did exactly that - using a manuever that put the teen's life in danger (hey, same thing he was doing to others), the officer's life in danger (we pay them for that - not enough, but that's the job), but no innocents in danger (as opposed to the situation before the PIT). That's exactly right. The teen might as well have been firing a gun around at random - he could have hit anyone. Just because he hadn't yet doesn't make him safe!