If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
Let's see if I have this right...
Police take off after a black Caddy doing 73mph in a 55mph zone, which leads to a high speed pursuit in the black Georgia night. The 19 year old yahoo behind the wheel of the Caddy is obviously of no mind to pull over. After almost 8 minutes of the chase through light traffic, one police cruiser bumps the Caddy from behind, at which point yahoo loses control of the car and careens off the road into (what appears to be) a telephone pole. Bottom line, the yahoo (who, originally, was guilty of driving at 18mph over the posted speed limit) is now a quadraplegic. Yahoo sues the police officer who "caused the crash" under the terms of the 4th Amendment (some weird logic about unlawful seizure?). "In this case, both a lower court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled in favor of [the yahoo]. The 11th Circuit said that [the officer's] actions constituted deadly force and that it was unreasonable because the officer had no reason to think [yahoo] had done anything more than violate traffic laws. The police gave chase because they clocked him going 73 mph in a 55-mph zone. 'Far from being the cautious and controlled driver the lower court depicts, what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury,' wrote Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia was incredulous that the lower courts had said Harris's case against Scott could proceed." (source: http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1241449/, among others) Now, I've viewed the video posted on the Supreme Court's website, and I have to say, "What the $*^&$# was that yahoo thinking?!?" The video is about 92MB and runs some 15+ minutes, showing what the onboard cameras of the police cruisers saw that night. First, you see the Caddy from the lead pursuit cruiser, then you get the same chase as seen from a second cruiser, the one which ultimately knocks the Caddy into the woods. (video at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio..._v_harris.rmvb) Watching the California Patrol in hot pursuit after a white Bronco doing 20mph for hours on end is one thing, but the chase in this video is typical of the ones being debated over recent years. At what point do the police engage in pursuit, and when do they just let the evil-doer go, hoping to pick him up later. The original crime here was not armed robbery or carjacking or leaving the scene of an accident, it was doing 73mph in a 55 zone. (Remember: I've said before that 72 is the magic number.) I have no idea why yahoo decided to try to escape, rather than simply pull over and accept the damn ticket. When the police officer is chasing down a speeder with siren and lights on, and the speeder just keeps on going, putting any number of other motorists in danger, the police officer can now use deadly force (i.e.: his front bumper) with a little more authority, thanks to today's Supreme Court ruling. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that yahoo compounded his possible speeding ticket with resisting arrest (always a good generic criminal activity, when everything else fails). But then leading the police on an 8-minute chase around any number of other motorists (most of whom had the good sense to pull over to the side of the road) has to be a serious crime. The potential for disaster is all over that video. I would have dismissed this case from the start. dwight www.tfrog93.com |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
Better the crook go free than risk being sued seems to be the desire
of the liberal courts. Ya gotta wonder why any of us ever thought about pinning on the badge and going forth to fight crime and/or evil. The citizens, who have never walked in our shoes second guess what should or should not have been done in that split second. Bad cops should be punished for stepping outside the bounds of moral decency... whether it's graft or abusing the power of the badge. But a lot of damn good cops have been lost to second guessing. Sadly, it only takes a small percent to make all look bad. They say a camera doesn't lie, but what it records is dependent upon the reviewer's bias, pro or con. Yep, I am biased in favor of the cops. I've walked in those shoes and know how fast something can go from being nothing to a full blown war. On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:49:56 -0400, "dwight" > wrote: >Let's see if I have this right... > >Police take off after a black Caddy doing 73mph in a 55mph zone, which leads >to a high speed pursuit in the black Georgia night. The 19 year old yahoo >behind the wheel of the Caddy is obviously of no mind to pull over. After >almost 8 minutes of the chase through light traffic, one police cruiser >bumps the Caddy from behind, at which point yahoo loses control of the car >and careens off the road into (what appears to be) a telephone pole. > >Bottom line, the yahoo (who, originally, was guilty of driving at 18mph over >the posted speed limit) is now a quadraplegic. > >Yahoo sues the police officer who "caused the crash" under the terms of the >4th Amendment (some weird logic about unlawful seizure?). > >"In this case, both a lower court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th >Circuit ruled in favor of [the yahoo]. The 11th Circuit said that [the >officer's] actions constituted deadly force and that it was unreasonable >because the officer had no reason to think [yahoo] had done anything more >than violate traffic laws. The police gave chase because they clocked him >going 73 mph in a 55-mph zone. > >'Far from being the cautious and controlled driver the lower court depicts, >what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-style car chase >of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent >bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury,' wrote Justice Antonin >Scalia. >Scalia was incredulous that the lower courts had said Harris's case against >Scott could proceed." > >(source: http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1241449/, among others) > >Now, I've viewed the video posted on the Supreme Court's website, and I have >to say, "What the $*^&$# was that yahoo thinking?!?" The video is about 92MB >and runs some 15+ minutes, showing what the onboard cameras of the police >cruisers saw that night. First, you see the Caddy from the lead pursuit >cruiser, then you get the same chase as seen from a second cruiser, the one >which ultimately knocks the Caddy into the woods. > >(video at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio..._v_harris.rmvb) > >Watching the California Patrol in hot pursuit after a white Bronco doing >20mph for hours on end is one thing, but the chase in this video is typical >of the ones being debated over recent years. At what point do the police >engage in pursuit, and when do they just let the evil-doer go, hoping to >pick him up later. > >The original crime here was not armed robbery or carjacking or leaving the >scene of an accident, it was doing 73mph in a 55 zone. (Remember: I've said >before that 72 is the magic number.) I have no idea why yahoo decided to try >to escape, rather than simply pull over and accept the damn ticket. > >When the police officer is chasing down a speeder with siren and lights on, >and the speeder just keeps on going, putting any number of other motorists >in danger, the police officer can now use deadly force (i.e.: his front >bumper) with a little more authority, thanks to today's Supreme Court >ruling. > >I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that yahoo compounded his possible >speeding ticket with resisting arrest (always a good generic criminal >activity, when everything else fails). But then leading the police on an >8-minute chase around any number of other motorists (most of whom had the >good sense to pull over to the side of the road) has to be a serious crime. >The potential for disaster is all over that video. > >I would have dismissed this case from the start. > >dwight >www.tfrog93.com > |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
"Spike" > wrote in message
... > Better the crook go free than risk being sued seems to be the desire > of the liberal courts. Ya gotta wonder why any of us ever thought > about pinning on the badge and going forth to fight crime and/or evil. > The citizens, who have never walked in our shoes second guess what > should or should not have been done in that split second. > > Bad cops should be punished for stepping outside the bounds of moral > decency... whether it's graft or abusing the power of the badge. But > a lot of damn good cops have been lost to second guessing. Sadly, it > only takes a small percent to make all look bad. > > They say a camera doesn't lie, but what it records is dependent upon > the reviewer's bias, pro or con. > > Yep, I am biased in favor of the cops. I've walked in those shoes and > know how fast something can go from being nothing to a full blown war. Reading the articles, it seems as though the video squashed all debate. The majority obviously felt that the video alone was a compelling argument on the side of the police. Having watched it, I agree wholeheartedly. This ruling is made against the backdrop of the ongoing public debate over high speed chases. I imagine that almost all such pursuits can be second-guessed after the fact, as to whether or not continuing the chase was warranted. I think that the police now show a very healthy respect for the environment in which the chase takes place (or doesn't), which is a direct result of that debate. But I'll give great weight to whatever decision the police make in these cases. In this particular case, this 19 year old kid could have chosen to pull over at any time in the 8-minute event without any lasting effects. Talk about choices... dwight > > > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:49:56 -0400, "dwight" > > wrote: > >>Let's see if I have this right... >> >>Police take off after a black Caddy doing 73mph in a 55mph zone, which >>leads >>to a high speed pursuit in the black Georgia night. The 19 year old yahoo >>behind the wheel of the Caddy is obviously of no mind to pull over. After >>almost 8 minutes of the chase through light traffic, one police cruiser >>bumps the Caddy from behind, at which point yahoo loses control of the car >>and careens off the road into (what appears to be) a telephone pole. >> >>Bottom line, the yahoo (who, originally, was guilty of driving at 18mph >>over >>the posted speed limit) is now a quadraplegic. >> >>Yahoo sues the police officer who "caused the crash" under the terms of >>the >>4th Amendment (some weird logic about unlawful seizure?). >> >>"In this case, both a lower court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the >>11th >>Circuit ruled in favor of [the yahoo]. The 11th Circuit said that [the >>officer's] actions constituted deadly force and that it was unreasonable >>because the officer had no reason to think [yahoo] had done anything more >>than violate traffic laws. The police gave chase because they clocked him >>going 73 mph in a 55-mph zone. >> >>'Far from being the cautious and controlled driver the lower court >>depicts, >>what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-style car >>chase >>of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent >>bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury,' wrote Justice Antonin >>Scalia. >>Scalia was incredulous that the lower courts had said Harris's case >>against >>Scott could proceed." >> >>(source: http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1241449/, among others) >> >>Now, I've viewed the video posted on the Supreme Court's website, and I >>have >>to say, "What the $*^&$# was that yahoo thinking?!?" The video is about >>92MB >>and runs some 15+ minutes, showing what the onboard cameras of the police >>cruisers saw that night. First, you see the Caddy from the lead pursuit >>cruiser, then you get the same chase as seen from a second cruiser, the >>one >>which ultimately knocks the Caddy into the woods. >> >>(video at: >>http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio..._v_harris.rmvb) >> >>Watching the California Patrol in hot pursuit after a white Bronco doing >>20mph for hours on end is one thing, but the chase in this video is >>typical >>of the ones being debated over recent years. At what point do the police >>engage in pursuit, and when do they just let the evil-doer go, hoping to >>pick him up later. >> >>The original crime here was not armed robbery or carjacking or leaving the >>scene of an accident, it was doing 73mph in a 55 zone. (Remember: I've >>said >>before that 72 is the magic number.) I have no idea why yahoo decided to >>try >>to escape, rather than simply pull over and accept the damn ticket. >> >>When the police officer is chasing down a speeder with siren and lights >>on, >>and the speeder just keeps on going, putting any number of other motorists >>in danger, the police officer can now use deadly force (i.e.: his front >>bumper) with a little more authority, thanks to today's Supreme Court >>ruling. >> >>I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that yahoo compounded his possible >>speeding ticket with resisting arrest (always a good generic criminal >>activity, when everything else fails). But then leading the police on an >>8-minute chase around any number of other motorists (most of whom had the >>good sense to pull over to the side of the road) has to be a serious >>crime. >>The potential for disaster is all over that video. >> >>I would have dismissed this case from the start. >> >>dwight >>www.tfrog93.com >> |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
In article >, dwight wrote:
> In this particular case, this 19 year old kid could have chosen to pull over > at any time in the 8-minute event without any lasting effects. Talk about > choices... What we need to evaluate is the traffic stop itself. Governments see the traffic stops as money making excerise and use underposted speed limits to increase their revenues. Cops see it as a way to catch criminals. The public in general is annoyed and hassled. But what happens when you get some kid or someone else who makes poor decisions? He cannot afford being selected for taxation so he runs. What about someone who's wanted on some stupid petty warrant? He runs too. Most of these people that have warrants, the government can just go to the address on their DL to find them. Instead it waits until they have an interaction with law enforcement at the side of the road. High speed pursuits could be cut down by getting rid of selective roadside taxation and just doing some simple police work to pick up people with warrants. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
dwight wrote:
> "Spike" > wrote in message > ... >> Better the crook go free than risk being sued seems to be the desire >> of the liberal courts. Ya gotta wonder why any of us ever thought >> about pinning on the badge and going forth to fight crime and/or evil. >> The citizens, who have never walked in our shoes second guess what >> should or should not have been done in that split second. >> >> Bad cops should be punished for stepping outside the bounds of moral >> decency... whether it's graft or abusing the power of the badge. But >> a lot of damn good cops have been lost to second guessing. Sadly, it >> only takes a small percent to make all look bad. >> >> They say a camera doesn't lie, but what it records is dependent upon >> the reviewer's bias, pro or con. >> >> Yep, I am biased in favor of the cops. I've walked in those shoes and >> know how fast something can go from being nothing to a full blown war. > > Reading the articles, it seems as though the video squashed all debate. The > majority obviously felt that the video alone was a compelling argument on > the side of the police. Having watched it, I agree wholeheartedly. > Then I have to wonder how the hell did it end up going so far to begin with?? Must have been yahoo's family on the jury. -- "Yes, it is a good thing you are handy, as you clearly suck at being smart." - Herb |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
dwight wrote:
> Scalia was incredulous that the lower courts had said Harris's case against > Scott could proceed." And our "Justice System" strikes again. > > I'm no lawyer, Thank god for that. There's way too many of those knuckleheads running around loose. > > I would have dismissed this case from the start. That's because you have a brain, and more than half a gram of common sense. -- ..boB 2006 FXDI hot rod 2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92 1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver 1965 FFR Cobra - 427W EFI, Damn Fast. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
In article >, Spike wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:35:34 -0500, > (Brent P) wrote: > >>In article >, dwight wrote: >> >>> In this particular case, this 19 year old kid could have chosen to pull over >>> at any time in the 8-minute event without any lasting effects. Talk about >>> choices... >> >>What we need to evaluate is the traffic stop itself. Governments see the >>traffic stops as money making excerise and use underposted speed limits >>to increase their revenues. Cops see it as a way to catch criminals. The >>public in general is annoyed and hassled. >> >>But what happens when you get some kid or someone else who makes poor >>decisions? He cannot afford being selected for taxation so he runs. What >>about someone who's wanted on some stupid petty warrant? He runs too. >>Most of these people that have warrants, the government can just go to >>the address on their DL to find them. Instead it waits until they have an >>interaction with law enforcement at the side of the road. >> >>High speed pursuits could be cut down by getting rid of selective >>roadside taxation and just doing some simple police work to pick up >>people with warrants. > Nothing personal, Brent, but you objections to police activities in > the area of traffic enforcement have been obvious for a long time. If it wasn't personal, then you wouldn't mention it. You must somehow feel that my dislike of checkpoints, defining the majority of drivers as violators, etc and so forth is discrediting. > It's the same old story. Many people want the cops out stopping the > bad guys, as long as they are not the ones being stopped. People don't understand that their own rights are tied to the rights of the people they object to. I do, which is why I object to checkpoints, traffic law that defines most people as violators so cops can pick and choose, etc and so forth. I don't like selective enforcement and never have. > And if the > suspect is injured, it's the cops fault for chasing them. In other > words, they give tacit approval to people who break the laws society > institutes. What if it's just a bystandard that's injured? Then the suspect is blamed for running... > That's as bad as the "illegal immigrant" problem. If someone enters > the country illegally, it's a crime. But the do-gooders want to give > the "criminals" amnesty. Would they see it the same way if an > "illegal" entered their home without permission, and demanded to be > fed, clothed, educated, and their medical taken care of? And if that > same illegal bore a child in that home and then demanded to be allowed > to remain their forever, would the owner still see things the same > way? Search for immigration by the numbers on google video. Did you know that cops often let illegals go for things they ticket and arrest citizens for in some parts of the nation? Wasn't it the Austin TX police that got an award from the Mexican government for just that? It's part of bigger scheme IMO, but that's way OT. > You don't want pursuits for traffic offenses because it's just another > form of taxation and revenue collection.... Um no. I want the speed limits to make sense and set properly by the best known engineering method available. This way, it doesn't define safe drivers as violators of the law. Those still in violation are truely a problem. When a speed limit is underposted, it is about revenue and things other than safety. > UNTIL.... your child is the one killed by a speeder. Two children were killed last year in the chicago area on a road I am familiar with. One was when Mrs. Magoo drove up on the sidewalk and ran over the family. She was not speeding. The other was killed when a rental truck being driven by someone fleeing the cops crashed into the car he was riding in, going about 2X the normal traffic speed. The normal traffic speed is anywhere from 5-15 over depending on traffic. > One accident I will never forget... a > father was walking with his two children to the store to buy the girl > her birthday gift. A teen ripped out of a side street, slid sideways, > off the pavement, and the girl took the full impact. The father had > been able to push the boy aside. That's not speeding, that's reckless driving. But what if it was Mrs. Magoo? What then? What do you blame when the kid is killed by some moron doing 35 in a 35? A couple cheap tickets for driving on the sidewalk and failure to control? Because afterall, Mrs. Magoo just screwed up... right? > Now, how many times had he driven like that and not been stopped > before he finally killed a child? How would an underposted speed limit saved the child? It's a number on the sign. > But we never should have gone after > him until he did more than just speed and break traction? Maybe if we > had been able to stop him earlier, he might have learned a lesson and > it never would have reached the level it did. Maybe not. But we never > had the chance to find out because our pursuit limits were not more > than 5mph in a residential area, and not more than 15mph over the > posted on the highway. You were chasing the kid at the time? That's not just exceeding the speed painted on a sign, but something far from it. Why should the vast majority of people who are not criminal, who don't do these things be made violators of the law so that you can pick these people out and 'nip em in the bud'? Mr. and Mrs. Magoo actually violate the vehicle code time and time again and they aren't 'nipped in the bud', instead we are all told to drive slower to avoid them! > We've already raised a generation which has little or no respect for > any kind of authority; not even parents, let alone the law. The ones The problem is the society moved away from one where people took on certain jobs but were still citizens themselves to one where there are people and the authorities. The old way was based in a mutual respect, the new way, authority uses fear of what it can do. The problem with fear based authority is that there is a degeneration. There is no respect because authority doesn't respect people, it rules over them. I have had and have positions of responsibility. Many would say authority, I won't use that word, because I don't rule people. The position is one of responsibility, a burden. I don't enjoy it, but someone has to do it. I expect people to behave themselves and I respect them. Guess what, for the most part I get positive response and don't have to monitor people and look for violations, and so forth. I don't have to threaten or use fear. I explain things. It's amazing how well that works. Sometimes debate, even argue, but I will not use fear. But that's not society at large. We operate in a fear based system with authorities. And the result we have is the degeration that a fear based system creates. And then what do people do when they fear? They RUN. What happens when they get over fear, they do the same wrong things over again. Fear is poor tool. Cops use fear as a tool in so many interactions with people. That isn't helping things at all when other factors are raising people to be selfish and rude. In fact, I've found it's completely flipped around, telling people they are rude is considered bad, but being rude is ok. It's fine to be an ass to someone but that other person has to be submissive and turn the other cheek. Trying to figure out that all works into a bigger picture. > who were once the "bad guys" have become the "good guys". Why should > they care or have respect for anything when they know the police > aren't allowed to chase after them? Did I argue that police shouldn't be allowed to chase? No. I argued that police and government shouldn't rely on traffic stops to raise revenue and catch criminals, because that would greatly cut down on the number of chases. There's a huge difference that apparently went over your head. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
Spike wrote: <and I snipped>
> > It's the same old story. Many people want the cops out stopping the > bad guys, as long as they are not the ones being stopped. And if the > suspect is injured, it's the cops fault for chasing them. In other > words, they give tacit approval to people who break the laws society > institutes. > > You don't want pursuits for traffic offenses because it's just another > form of taxation and revenue collection.... UNTIL.... your child is > the one killed by a speeder. I have no objection to cops stopping cars for speeding/etc. when there is a genuine issue of public safety; and I have no objection to the high-speed pursuit of cars that don't stop when blue-lighted, regardless of the reason for the original blue-light. But we all know that some tickets are issued merely to raise money, and every such ticket reduces the reputation of cops. Sorry, Spike, in my book, revenue-driven ticketing is just plain wrong. Worse even than the tickets issued solely for revenue is the attitude shown by many cops: the attitude that if you don't support the cops in every possible way and in every possible situation, then you are anti-cop. That's wrong. In this region, city and state cops are notorious for testlying and for internal cover-ups. That's wrong. The public's perception of cops is certainly not helped when some cops are making in excess of $200,000 per year. But, no legislator dares to even mention reducing the pay/benefits packages, out of fear of the clout of cops. That's wrong. I've found most cops to be good, moral, people. But there are wrongs in police operations that need to be exposed and corrected, and the image of individual cops continues to be limited by the image of the group. -- Cheers, Bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
From the Land of the Police Pursuit | Eeyore | Driving | 4 | February 4th 07 05:27 AM |
Police in pursuit of a stolen Dump Truck..................news footage | Lufthansi | Driving | 1 | July 21st 06 05:45 PM |
1972 Beetle Loses Power at Sustained High Speed / RPMs | [email protected] | VW air cooled | 11 | April 23rd 06 02:37 PM |
High speed pursuit of a BMW with an almost insane tragic ending ( Video-Clip ) | [email protected] | BMW | 1 | March 18th 06 02:12 AM |
High speed police chase in California -> where is full video ofshooting? | Some Guy | Driving | 2 | May 17th 05 08:55 AM |