US Supreme Court

The Court is now debating whether police violated the rights of a criminal
named Harris who was running from them, failing to pull over, while being
chased at more than 90 MPH.

In Harris' case the pursuing police performed what is known as a "pit
maneuver" in an attempt to prevent the suspect from going further. His
lawyers claim he should have been allowed to proceed unimpeded so that he
might murder anybody in his way, either with his automobile or by other
means.

Harris was injured and his feelings were hurt by police when his car
overturned after being contacted by the pursuing police cruiser.

It will be interesting to watch the outcome of this Court action which is
certain to be a landmark in the rights of murderers or those who wish to be
murderers, to kill any and all they see fit by any means including motor
vehicle.
--
Paddy's Pig
------------
To reply its bell not bull

"Padraig" > wrote in message
...

> It will be interesting to watch the outcome of this Court action which is
> certain to be a landmark in the rights of murderers or those who wish to
> be murderers, to kill any and all they see fit by any means including
> motor vehicle.

In a separate action a private citizen has filed a civil suit against police
in a case where a murderer plowed his car into a school bus at more than 90
MPH, killing 14 students and injuring 29. The suit alleges that the police
did nothing to stop the murderer and that they should have at least
attempted to perform the pit maneuver or stop him by other means before he
succeeded in taking lives.
--
Paddy's Pig
------------
To reply its bell not bull

On this day of this month, in a year likely to be unrecorded in human
history, Padraig wrote:

> "Padraig" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> It will be interesting to watch the outcome of this Court action which is
>> certain to be a landmark in the rights of murderers or those who wish to
>> be murderers, to kill any and all they see fit by any means including
>> motor vehicle.
>
> In a separate action a private citizen has filed a civil suit against police
> in a case where a murderer plowed his car into a school bus at more than 90
> MPH, killing 14 students and injuring 29. The suit alleges that the police
> did nothing to stop the murderer and that they should have at least
> attempted to perform the pit maneuver or stop him by other means before he
> succeeded in taking lives.


"It's murder what some people can do with a car."

-- Firesign Theatre


--
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

-- Groucho Marx

"Padraig" > wrote in message
...

> It will be interesting to watch the outcome of this Court action which is
> certain to be a landmark in the rights of murderers or those who wish to
> be murderers, to kill any and all they see fit by any means including
> motor vehicle.


When interviewed on courthouse steps, Harris's lawyer stated that his client
is now "sad" because he is paralyzed and that the regretable condition could
have been avoided if police had simply let him go and not interfered with
his progress. "Police need to be cognizant of the rights of people who
simply want to kill others" the lawyer said. "We cannot tolerate a system
where police make killers feel sad or depressed, and we most definitely
cannot allow police to injure killers or people who want to be killers."

A ruling in the case may take up to 5 years according to legal consultants
familiar with the case and any ruling is certain to be appealed by.
--
Paddy's Pig
------------
To reply its bell not bull

PS - Who says the courts are broken?

Please tell me this is a joke....

max

"Padraig" > wrote in message
...
> "Padraig" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> It will be interesting to watch the outcome of this Court action which is
>> certain to be a landmark in the rights of murderers or those who wish to
>> be murderers, to kill any and all they see fit by any means including
>> motor vehicle.
>
>
> When interviewed on courthouse steps, Harris's lawyer stated that his
> client is now "sad" because he is paralyzed and that the regretable
> condition could have been avoided if police had simply let him go and not
> interfered with his progress. "Police need to be cognizant of the rights
> of people who simply want to kill others" the lawyer said. "We cannot
> tolerate a system where police make killers feel sad or depressed, and we
> most definitely cannot allow police to injure killers or people who want
> to be killers."
>
> A ruling in the case may take up to 5 years according to legal consultants
> familiar with the case and any ruling is certain to be appealed by.
> --
> Paddy's Pig
> ------------
> To reply its bell not bull
>
> PS - Who says the courts are broken?
>
>
>
>

"Police need to be cognizant of the rights of people who
simply want to kill others" the lawyer said. "We cannot tolerate a system
where police make killers feel sad or depressed, and we most definitely
cannot allow police to injure killers or people who want to be killers."


did he really make such an asinine statement? no way!



"Padraig" > wrote in message
...
> "Padraig" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > It will be interesting to watch the outcome of this Court action which
is
> > certain to be a landmark in the rights of murderers or those who wish to
> > be murderers, to kill any and all they see fit by any means including
> > motor vehicle.
>
>
> When interviewed on courthouse steps, Harris's lawyer stated that his
client
> is now "sad" because he is paralyzed and that the regretable condition
could
> have been avoided if police had simply let him go and not interfered with
> his progress. "Police need to be cognizant of the rights of people who
> simply want to kill others" the lawyer said. "We cannot tolerate a system
> where police make killers feel sad or depressed, and we most definitely
> cannot allow police to injure killers or people who want to be killers."
>
> A ruling in the case may take up to 5 years according to legal consultants
> familiar with the case and any ruling is certain to be appealed by.
> --
> Paddy's Pig
> ------------
> To reply its bell not bull
>
> PS - Who says the courts are broken?
>
>
>
>

Today, Padraig made these interesting comments ...

> The Court is now debating whether police violated the rights
> of a criminal named Harris who was running from them, failing
> to pull over, while being chased at more than 90 MPH.
>
> In Harris' case the pursuing police performed what is known as
> a "pit maneuver" in an attempt to prevent the suspect from
> going further. His lawyers claim he should have been allowed
> to proceed unimpeded so that he might murder anybody in his
> way, either with his automobile or by other means.
>
> Harris was injured and his feelings were hurt by police when
> his car overturned after being contacted by the pursuing
> police cruiser.
>
> It will be interesting to watch the outcome of this Court
> action which is certain to be a landmark in the rights of
> murderers or those who wish to be murderers, to kill any and
> all they see fit by any means including motor vehicle.

This is very OT at best, and starts to tred on the area of politics
as it attempts to inspire debate on this poor criminals rights. Do
not bring politics here!

--
HP, aka Jerry

Today, MagisterMax made these interesting comments ...

> Please tell me this is a joke....
>
yes, it is - the OP
>
> "Padraig" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Padraig" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> It will be interesting to watch the outcome of this Court
>>> action which is certain to be a landmark in the rights of
>>> murderers or those who wish to be murderers, to kill any and
>>> all they see fit by any means including motor vehicle.
>>
>>
>> When interviewed on courthouse steps, Harris's lawyer stated
>> that his client is now "sad" because he is paralyzed and that
>> the regretable condition could have been avoided if police
>> had simply let him go and not interfered with his progress.
>> "Police need to be cognizant of the rights of people who
>> simply want to kill others" the lawyer said. "We cannot
>> tolerate a system where police make killers feel sad or
>> depressed, and we most definitely cannot allow police to
>> injure killers or people who want to be killers."
>>
>> A ruling in the case may take up to 5 years according to
>> legal consultants familiar with the case and any ruling is
>> certain to be appealed by. --
>> Paddy's Pig
>> ------------
>> To reply its bell not bull
>>
>> PS - Who says the courts are broken?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>



--
HP, aka Jerry

Today, rob made these interesting comments ...

> "Police need to be cognizant of the rights of people who
> simply want to kill others" the lawyer said. "We cannot
> tolerate a system where police make killers feel sad or
> depressed, and we most definitely cannot allow police to
> injure killers or people who want to be killers."
>
The name of this group is alt.binaries.PICTURES.AUTOS, where
exactly in its chargter and FAQs does a debate on criminal rights
fall? I'll tell you and the others - it is called abuse. Politics
of any kind has no place here.

> did he really make such an asinine statement? no way!
>
>
>
> "Padraig" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Padraig" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > It will be interesting to watch the outcome of this Court
>> > action which is certain to be a landmark in the rights of
>> > murderers or those who wish to be murderers, to kill any
>> > and all they see fit by any means including motor vehicle.
>>
>>
>> When interviewed on courthouse steps, Harris's lawyer stated
>> that his client is now "sad" because he is paralyzed and that
>> the regretable condition could have been avoided if police
>> had simply let him go and not interfered with his progress.
>> "Police need to be cognizant of the rights of people who
>> simply want to kill others" the lawyer said. "We cannot
>> tolerate a system where police make killers feel sad or
>> depressed, and we most definitely cannot allow police to
>> injure killers or people who want to be killers."
>>
>> A ruling in the case may take up to 5 years according to
>> legal consultants familiar with the case and any ruling is
>> certain to be appealed by. --
>> Paddy's Pig
>> ------------
>> To reply its bell not bull
>>
>> PS - Who says the courts are broken?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>



--
HP, aka Jerry

"MagisterMax" > wrote in message
news:TCSEh.124$ka5.56@edtnps90...
> Please tell me this is a joke....


Well, it is and it isn't. A suit has been filed on behalf of an
incarcerated felon alleging that police used undue force to stop him when
his car was successfully "pitted". A cruel joke, but factual. I had just
seen it on the news and I saw the actual film shot by the police officer's
dash-mounted camera during the chase and at the conclusion of the chase.
The fleeing felon's car catapulted end-over-end and he was injured. All of
that is factual. The felon, at the instant when he decided to try to outrun
police, realized the chase might end badly and somebody may be injured or
killed. He mulled that over in an instant and decided that was okay, he
didn't care about anybody else so if he hit and killed somebody that's their
problem not his.

If the complainant prevails a precedent may be established preventing police
from attempting to apprehend felons fleeing in automobiles in the future.

This is topical in this NG because it has to do with our favorite subject -
cars and the use thereof.
--
Paddy's Pig
------------
To reply its bell not bull