NationStates Jolt Archive

You give up your civil right not to be harmed if they have to ram your car off the road.

In essence, if you get hurt when your car crashes after they ram you, it's not their fault. They have full permission to do it, and you can't sue them for violating your civil rights.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-scotus0430,0,6953826.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

WASHINGTON // The Supreme Court today gave police officers protection from lawsuits that result from high-speed car chases, ruling against a Georgia teenager who was paralyzed after his car was run off the road.

In a case that turned on a video of the chase in suburban Atlanta, Justice Antonin Scalia said law enforcement officers do not have to call off pursuit of a fleeing motorist when they reasonably expect that other people could be hurt.

Rather, officers can take measures to stop the car without putting themselves at risk of civil rights lawsuits.

On top of that, if you or they hurt anybody else in the process of chasing a getaway car, it's the getaway's fault. If the policeman gets hurt or killed, it is assualt or homicide against the getaways.

And that is as it should be. *nod*

Why does the US care more about catching criminals than not harming its own citizens?

I mean, I understand the idea that whatever happens to the runner is their own fault (or for that matter, that the runner is also responsible for anything that happens to the cops). However, if the police are going to be putting other people at risk by chasing after them, then they should let them go.

Great, now I can get killed by the cops chasing someone who is panicking on a suspended license...yep, that's totally worth it. Wouldn't want them to just pick that guy up later or anything...

Surely you mean, don't run from the pOlice right?

Let me guess without reading anything else - somebody ran from the cops in the States and got shot?

Don't they know any better?

Hell, when I got pulled over, I put my hand on the stearing wheel when the cop approached the vehicle.

I've seen enough TV to know that. :p

Oh, that's a new one to me. Then again, the U.S. is the only country I've been to that has its police cars equipped with a battering ram...

I find myself agreeing with this course of action by the court. It means that officers can perform thier jobs without the fear of being tied up by lawsuits.

That's the problem with British police. They are scared ****-less because they have to make sure they're not violating any of the umpteen civil and human rights of the criminal when making an arrest or whatever. Sometimes they have to face lawsuits that more often than not turn out to be eventually bogus, which consumes thier precious time.

Then when they get back to the station, they have to fill out umpteen different forms and other paperwork, put in perhaps 5 minutes of time on the beat, then go home. We have hardly enough police to patrol our cities, and instead of trying to slash the amount of paperwork the police have to do, they (politicians) just use community officers to fill in the gaps left by the regular PC's.

Let me guess without reading anything else - somebody ran from the cops in the States and got shot?


No, they weren't shot. They were rammed off the road.

Why does the US care more about catching criminals than not harming its own citizens?

I mean, I understand the idea that whatever happens to the runner is their own fault (or for that matter, that the runner is also responsible for anything that happens to the cops). However, if the police are going to be putting other people at risk by chasing after them, then they should let them go.

Because a car traveling at high speed is a lethal instrument. It's like a maniac running down the street shooting at random. You don't wait until he unloads ten more rounds for fear of accidentally hitting a bystander. He has to be stopped asap. High speed getaways are the same thing. The police will often NOT act aggressively if they don't feel there's a threat, but if they HAVE to act to protect the public, then their actions are the fault of the suspect, not the police.

I find myself agreeing with this course of action by the court. It means that officers can perform thier jobs without the fear of being tied up by lawsuits.

It also means that innocent bystanders can be rammed by the police, if they are in a high-speed chase. That could be you, you know.

Hmm, I'd probably side with Stevens, in that there should be a trial to show whether or not the officer used reasonable force. I believe the vast majority of trials would favour the police, but I still think there needs to be trials to show when the police may have used over the top force in their actions.

What if they have to tear gas me, or shoot me with bean bags?

It also means that innocent bystanders can be rammed by the police, if they are in a high-speed chase. That could be you, you know.

No, it just means that accidental deaths and injuries caused by a high speed chase are the legal responsibility of the chased, not the chaser. As it should be.

What if they have to tear gas me, or shoot me with bean bags?

Pffft. That's perfectly ok.

What if they have to tear gas me, or shoot me with bean bags?

I'd do that for fun! :D

But my wife refuses to bring me home any of those groovy toys. :(

Because a car traveling at high speed is a lethal instrument. It's like a maniac running down the street shooting at random. You don't wait until he unloads ten more rounds for fear of accidentally hitting a bystander. He has to be stopped asap. High speed getaways are the same thing. The police will often NOT act aggressively if they don't feel there's a threat, but if they HAVE to act to protect the public, then their actions are the fault of the suspect, not the police.

Two cars travelling at high speed is twice the lethal instrument.

The correct analogy of yours would be:
In the event of a maniac running down the street shooting at random you are to run after him, shooting at random until you hit him.

It's not at all the same situation, as you can see.

Also, if the runner hits an innocent bystander, yes, he's going to be guilty of more than one crime. However, if the police are not trained enough to feel secure in pursuing this criminal, they shouldn't. They shouldn't do it, because not only do they risk hurting innocent bystanders, they risk making the high-speed chase all the more high-speed and risky for everyone.

No, it just means that accidental deaths and injuries caused by a high speed chase are the legal responsibility of the chased, not the chaser. As it should be.

No, because if the police are the cause of the accidental death or injuries, they have to accept that they didn't have the necessary training to carry out a high-speed chase and should be charged accordingly.

Two cars travelling at high speed is twice the lethal instrument.

The correct analogy of yours would be:
In the event of a maniac running down the street shooting at random you are to run after him, shooting at random until you hit him.

It's not at all the same situation, as you can see.

Also, if the runner hits an innocent bystander, yes, he's going to be guilty of more than one crime. However, if the police are not trained enough to feel secure in pursuing this criminal, they shouldn't. They shouldn't do it, because not only do they risk hurting innocent bystanders, they risk making the high-speed chase all the more high-speed and risky for everyone.

They don't know that. Suppose they don't try to stop a high speed chaser and he runs a school bus off the road. What then? The risk of allowing a high speed pursuit to contiue outweighs the risk of using aggressive force to end it.

No, because if the police are the cause of the accidental death or injuries, they have to accept that they didn't have the necessary training to carry out a high-speed chase and should be charged accordingly.

The police aren't the cause of the injuries and deaths. The chase is. Ergo, the chaser is.

No, because if the police are the cause of the accidental death or injuries, they have to accept that they didn't have the necessary training to carry out a high-speed chase and should be charged accordingly.

No, if a suspect decides to try a high-speed escape from the police in the first place, he is liable for every injury that occurs during that chase, whether to himself or bystanders, because he chose to run. The fact that a bystander was hit by a police car rather than by the suspect's car does not matter, since the suspect created circumstances leading to the accident.

It`s an accident people. Nothing more, nothing less. I doubt the cops involved will think "Yeah, we GOT HIM! Whooo!". Sucks to be them now.

It also means that innocent bystanders can be rammed by the police, if they are in a high-speed chase. That could be you, you know.

Yeah but it doesn't say police should ram bystanders. They will do everything in thier power to not ram innocents.

And ultimate responsibility does go to the chasee.

I've known a few cops, and frankly there's nothing they like less than a chase. It's a horribly uncontrolled situation where the chances of people (runner, cop, or bystander) getting hurt or killed is always too high.

But simultaneously, if they don't chase and stop these idiots then the number of runners will rise, as criminals realize they'll be able to escape the police at will.

It's a no win situation. At least now they don't have to worry about being sued due to the results in the states.

They don't know that. Suppose they don't try to stop a high speed chaser and he runs a school bus off the road. What then? The risk of allowing a high speed pursuit to contiue outweighs the risk of using aggressive force to end it.

The police aren't the cause of the injuries and deaths. The chase is. Ergo, the chaser is.

And what if the police ram the schoolbus? They shouldn't, but are they confident and trained enough so that it doesn't happen? They can still pursue him, but anything that they directly cause, they are responsible for (with a single exception).

I disagree. If the police ram that schoolbus instead of the chaser, the police are the cause of the injuries of deaths of anyone in that schoolbus (although, to be honest, they're probably more dead than the people in the bus).

The chaser may share the blame for any injuries or deaths caused by the police, but he is not directly responsible, unless he is the one that directly causes injury or death to an innocent bystander.

As for himself, he is responsible for the chase, yeah, which means anything that happens to himself is entirely his own fault.

No, if a suspect decides to try a high-speed escape from the police in the first place, he is liable for every injury that occurs during that chase, whether to himself or bystanders, because he chose to run. The fact that a bystander was hit by a police car rather than by the suspect's car does not matter, since the suspect created circumstances leading to the accident.

No he is not. If the police are the direct cause of an injury to an innocent bystander, it is the police that are guilty of having caused injury. They should not pursue a high-speed chase, if they are not comfortably trained and secure in the knowledge that they are responsible law enforcers that are aiming to first and foremost provide security for others and secondly to arrest.

Yeah but it doesn't say police should ram bystanders. They will do everything in thier power to not ram innocents.

And ultimate responsibility does go to the chasee.

But they could and they wouldn't be held responsible, even though they should.

Ultimate responsibility for the chase goes to the chasee. Ultimate responsibility for innocent bystanders injured or killed goes to whomever caused it, whether it be the chased or the chasers.

Why does the US care more about catching criminals than not harming its own citizens?

I mean, I understand the idea that whatever happens to the runner is their own fault (or for that matter, that the runner is also responsible for anything that happens to the cops). However, if the police are going to be putting other people at risk by chasing after them, then they should let them go.

Let the criminal escape unharmed and unacosted to continue to cause more crimes and harm more people? The job of a police force is to stop criminals, not clean up the messes they leave behind, the whole thing is counter-productive.

No he is not. If the police are the direct cause of an injury to an innocent bystander, it is the police that are guilty of having caused injury. They should not pursue a high-speed chase, if they are not comfortably trained and secure in the knowledge that they are responsible law enforcers that are aiming to first and foremost provide security for others and secondly to arrest.

The problem is that those two duties are often one and the same. A person driving at high speeds down a road is a danger to himself and everyone on it, not to mention breaking several laws at the same time. The police have to stop him to prevent the danger to bystanders, but they cannot do so if they don't pursue.

Ideally, the police would be able to drive well enough to stop the chasee, but any amount of training is not adequate preparation for a real chase. You can't predict where the suspect will do, whether he'll pull over after a few minutes, try to run for the state border, take a detour through a parking lot, etc. You might not even know if the suspect in question in drunk, high, desperate, or mentally ill. All of those unknowns are so particular to each chase that police officers cannot simply not chase a suspect because they don't think they'll be able to do it safely. As you said, they have a duty to public safety and to arrest the suspect, so the safest course of action is to end the chase as quickly as possible, rather than allow a potentially lethal accident later by letting the suspect go.

Hmm, I'd probably side with Stevens, in that there should be a trial to show whether or not the officer used reasonable force. I believe the vast majority of trials would favour the police, but I still think there needs to be trials to show when the police may have used over the top force in their actions.

That seems reasonable. Giving cops, giving anyone blanket immunity in the course of their jobs seems to me to be a recipe for disaster. It's like you're begging these people to abuse their power because there's little, if any threat of consequence.

Ive always found it hard to understand that even with your hands in the air, you often get up to 12 cops tackeling you into the pavement and then pilling up on you all together, mind you without risisting and with your hands in the air.

Because many pigs are sociopaths to begin with and these tendencies are encouraged by the police culture.

Let the criminal escape unharmed and unacosted to continue to cause more crimes and harm more people? The job of a police force is to stop criminals, not clean up the messes they leave behind, the whole thing is counter-productive.

Ideally, get the numberplates (if any) and catch them later.

The job of the police is to ensure public safety. If they harm the public in the process, they are indeed being counter-productive and should be held responsible.

The problem is that those two duties are often one and the same. A person driving at high speeds down a road is a danger to himself and everyone on it, not to mention breaking several laws at the same time. The police have to stop him to prevent the danger to bystanders, but they cannot do so if they don't pursue.

Ideally, the police would be able to drive well enough to stop the chasee, but any amount of training is not adequate preparation for a real chase. You can't predict where the suspect will do, whether he'll pull over after a few minutes, try to run for the state border, take a detour through a parking lot, etc. You might not even know if the suspect in question in drunk, high, desperate, or mentally ill. All of those unknowns are so particular to each chase that police officers cannot simply not chase a suspect because they don't think they'll be able to do it safely. As you said, they have a duty to public safety and to arrest the suspect, so the safest course of action is to end the chase as quickly as possible, rather than allow a potentially lethal accident later by letting the suspect go.

That does not, in any way, stop them from being held responsible if they mess up. Everyone else is, why can't they?

I would like to point out that, as they are chasing the criminal and they do not have intent to cause injuries or deaths (besides, maybe, that of the chased), they do not risk being charged with homicide unless they intentionally ram an innocent. They might risk manslaughter, but then compare this to the chased who not only will be charged as well for any manslaughter or injuries committed by the police (since he is an indirect cause and therefore at least an accomplice or something, I don't know the legal terms), he will be charged with homicide and assualt for any deaths or injuries he causes.

The police is still above the chased, but that does not take away their responsibilities.

Hmm, I'd probably side with Stevens, in that there should be a trial to show whether or not the officer used reasonable force. I believe the vast majority of trials would favour the police, but I still think there needs to be trials to show when the police may have used over the top force in their actions.
You run, anything is reasonable force. It is assumed you are running for a reason. There is a reason why you legally have to pull over when the cops are behind you. By running, you are breaking the law. If you had pulled over, there would be no risk of anyone getting hurt. It is your fault.

Why does the US care more about catching criminals than not harming its own citizens?

I mean, I understand the idea that whatever happens to the runner is their own fault (or for that matter, that the runner is also responsible for anything that happens to the cops). However, if the police are going to be putting other people at risk by chasing after them, then they should let them go.

Great, now I can get killed by the cops chasing someone who is panicking on a suspended license...yep, that's totally worth it. Wouldn't want them to just pick that guy up later or anything...

So I should be able to go rob a bank, get in my car, and if the cops try to pull me over, just ignore them?

Because I see that working out spectacularly in my favor.


You shouldn't be running from the police ANYWHERE. Not just the US. I assume most, if not all countries have very similar laws.

Ideally, get the numberplates (if any) and catch them later.

The job of the police is to ensure public safety. If they harm the public in the process, they are indeed being counter-productive and should be held responsible.



I'm not talking about harm to innocent bystanders. If a bystander is harmed by thier actions than the officer at fault should pay the appropriate penalties. The point I am making is that by not chasing a fleeing suspect an officer is failing to perform his duty to protect and serve those who may be harmed either immediatly or in the future. By simply taking down the cars make and license plate numbers they are giving the suspect too much of an oppurtunity to escape. Lisence plates can be changed, cars can be stolen, lisence plates can be stolen, or stolen and changed. You could steal a car AND a lisence plate and change then change the plates. It has been proven, even if it is a persons first offense, a success is oing to make them more likely to attempt the same thing again in the future.

So I should be able to go rob a bank, get in my car, and if the cops try to pull me over, just ignore them?

Because I see that working out spectacularly in my favor.


You shouldn't be running from the police ANYWHERE. Not just the US. I assume most, if not all countries have very similar laws.

Actually, most countries respect human life more than money.

Again, the police may chase you. You may run for it. That doesn't take away the police's responsibility not to put others in harms way, although, unlike regular people, they should only be held responsible if they cause harm.

That's already stretching it in order for them to be able to do their job.

I should also point it that by not obeying the authorities while armed with a weapon you have in essance given up your constitutional rights to personal safety.

To prevent anyone to argue my point, a car at any speed, let alone high speed is as dangerous as any gun.

You run, anything is reasonable force. It is assumed you are running for a reason. There is a reason why you legally have to pull over when the cops are behind you. By running, you are breaking the law. If you had pulled over, there would be no risk of anyone getting hurt. It is your fault.

You shouldn't be running from the police ANYWHERE. Not just the US. I assume most, if not all countries have very similar laws.

You realize this sounds a lot like "why should you worry if the government is listening in on your phone calls? If you're not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about." Because the police have never framed an innocent person, or killed someone in a case of mistaken identity. If you give cops carte blanche to do whatever they feel is necessary, you take away their need to use good judgment.

I am a cop. In most states, failing to stop for a police officer is called "fleeing and evading police" which is a felony. Once you do this, your civil rights mean jack. Also, the cop's job is to preserve peace and protect the innocent. You running from him on a city street at 90 miles an hour is obviously a concern for both. Therefore, cops may use any reasonable force nessecary to stop you. This could include spike strips, ramming, roadblocks, and in some extreme cases, shooting your tires. On the other hand, you are exactly correct. If the officer harms the public in a pursuit he should be held accountable ONLY if he is found at fault. If he hits your car (innocent) while chasing a felon, it is not his fault. It is the felon's fault. If he wasnt running, the cop would not be chasing! That could be another charge added to that felon's list. Same goes if the cop is injured. Then the felon is charged with "assault on a police officer with a deadly weapon(car)" and possibly with "attempted murder on a police officer." Basically, if a cop is chasing somebody, it all falls on the bad guy.

I'm not talking about harm to innocent bystanders. If a bystander is harmed by thier actions than the officer at fault should pay the appropriate penalties. The point I am making is that by not chasing a fleeing suspect an officer is failing to perform his duty to protect and serve those who may be harmed either immediatly or in the future. By simply taking down the cars make and license plate numbers they are giving the suspect too much of an oppurtunity to escape. Lisence plates can be changed, cars can be stolen, lisence plates can be stolen, or stolen and changed. You could steal a car AND a lisence plate and change then change the plates. It has been proven, even if it is a persons first offense, a success is oing to make them more likely to attempt the same thing again in the future.

I am not saying the police shouldn't chase. That's their decision to make. I am saying that if the police chase and they cause harm to an innocent bystander, they are to be held responsible for it.

In a more point by point form, to clear up my position:
Police should be held responsible for any harm they cause. If they cause harm, it should be assumed that any such harm is accidental, unless it can be proven otherwise (I can imagine it's possible, though extremely unlikely, that a slightly psychotic cop might take advantage and intentionally hurt a few people).

The chased should be held responsible for harm caused to themselves, police and others. Degree of responsibility depends on whether they caused or someone else caused the harm, but they should be held responsible. Naturally, no one gets any responsibility for harm caused to the chased, except for the chased, but they aren't going to sue themselves, are they?

Police shouldn't be held responsible for any harm the chased causes. They shouldn't be held responsible for any harm caused to the chased, as long as the suspect is still attempting to escape.

The chased should not be held responsible in the rare event that the police intentionally cause harm to others.

I should also point it that by not obeying the authorities while armed with a weapon you have in essance given up your constitutional rights to personal safety.

To prevent anyone to argue my point, a car at any speed, let alone high speed is as dangerous as any gun.

Yes, but innocent bystanders have Not given up their rights to personal safety.

Well said. The cop will not be held responsible unless it is proven he was wreckless.

I've never argued against the bystander's rights one bit. Only the fellons.
It seems to me you are arguing for the felons rights, wich by thier own designs they have decided they no longer need. If a felon is hurt by an officer using reasonable force (and in this case the officer recieved permission from superiors to carry out the actions, which more than classifies it as reasonable) they should not be responsible for the harm that befalls the suspect.

If someone was for instance holding you hostage on a street corner and a law enforcement official was forced to shoot them to protect you, himself, everyone else around you, would you blame the officer for injuring the hostage taker? In essence it is the same kind of thing, the man was endangering everyone around him and the police took necessary actions and used force to bring the situation to a closure. The suspect was harmed, but it was by his own violition.

Actually, most countries respect human life more than money.

Again, the police may chase you. You may run for it. That doesn't take away the police's responsibility not to put others in harms way, although, unlike regular people, they should only be held responsible if they cause harm.

That's already stretching it in order for them to be able to do their job.Okay, I murder someone. then I drive away. Should I still be allowed to just evade the cops?

The cops don't make the choice to run. If you hear sirens, you are legally required to pull over. There is no reason why there are other cars or people in the way. Stupidity is not the cops fault

He ran from the cops. He went 90 miles per hour. No one forced him to do that. I'm sorry he's 19 and paralyzed, but he fucked up. Actions have consequences. Don't flee the cops, or there will be consequences. This ain't rocked science.

You realize this sounds a lot like "why should you worry if the government is listening in on your phone calls? If you're not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about." Because the police have never framed an innocent person, or killed someone in a case of mistaken identity. If you give cops carte blanche to do whatever they feel is necessary, you take away their need to use good judgment.
And so we should be allowed to run from them if we disagree that we deserve to be pulled over?

Or do we have a legal system to handle these disputes?

I personally don't think I should have been pulled over going 70 in a 65 when there was no one else on the high way. If I chose to flee, rather than be pulled over, take the ticket, and handle it through the courts if I chose, then that is my choice. Not the cops. If someone died in that chase, myself, officer, or bystander, it is a direct result of MY choice. Not the cops.

Do cops need to use good judgement? Of course. I'm not arguing that they don't. However, I, as a person being pulled over, am not in the position to question that good judgement.

And yes, I have been pulled over for no other reason than the car I drive and what I look like. And I have been issued false tickets. And I have won both cases in a court of law. Amazingly, I didn't have to flee and stupidly put my life as well as others at risk.

You run, anything is reasonable force. It is assumed you are running for a reason. There is a reason why you legally have to pull over when the cops are behind you. By running, you are breaking the law. If you had pulled over, there would be no risk of anyone getting hurt. It is your fault.

You shouldn't be running from the police ANYWHERE. Not just the US. I assume most, if not all countries have very similar laws.Yes, most countries do. But they aren't crimes so that the police can ram anyone who doesn't stop for them. They're crimes so that when they finally do catch they can simply arrest you and search your car without having to worry about however else you were breaking the law at that time.

Scenario: A police car is cruising along when the officer sees something wrong with some car's tail light, or the car was speeding. He puts on his sirens to get the car to pull over so he can verbally warn the driver. However, the car suddenly speeds up and tries to get away.

The police officer pursues and stops the car. He arrests the driver for not stopping and impounds the car. The next day that car is reported stolen and the driver is charged with theftI am assured that his happens fairly frequently (arresting a suspect for one crime, but charging them with another).

Paralysing someone for life simply to because they were speeding slightly and didn't stop for the police at the time is a vastly disproportionate response - assuming that is all you know they have done wrong.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/scott_v_harris.rmvb
- looking at this footage of the chase the ramming does appear to be disproportionate.

The chase is about 6 minutes long. There doesn't appear to be much traffic on the road, and driver seems to have been driving fairly safely - albiet he's speeding and run a couple of reds (you, a bystander, normally wait at a junction if you hear a siren, even if the light is green), and finally the area, to my eyes doesn't appear especially built up, nor the time of day when children will be around - he's not likely to hit a pedestrian.

This should have gone to trial and the police officer should have been able to show why the driver needed to be rammed - doubtless I have missed many facts in my brief watching of the video.

At no point during the chase did respondent pull into the opposite lane other than to pass a car in front of him; he did the latter no more than five times and, on most of those occasions, used his turn signal. On none of these occasions was there a car traveling in the opposite direction. In fact, at one point, when respondent found himself behind a car in his own lane and there were cars traveling in the other direction, he slowed and waited for the cars traveling in the other direction to pass before overtaking the car in front of him while using his turn signal to do so.

I'm not talking about harm to innocent bystanders. If a bystander is harmed by thier actions than the officer at fault should pay the appropriate penalties... la-di-da-di-da-da

In fact Piresa it seems that you and I are in near total agreement about things the more we clarify. So why do we continue to debate our point?

Me:
The felon is responsible for any harm befalling them.
The Officer should be held responsible for any undue harm they directly cause to others, within reason.
You shouldn't be running anyway.
In most cases, letting them go for now is just plain lunacy

You:
The felon is responsible for any harm befalling them.
The Officer should be held responsible for any undue harm they directly cause to others, within reason.
You shouldn't be running anyway.

And so we should be allowed to run from them if we disagree that we deserve to be pulled over?

Or do we have a legal system to handle these disputes?

I personally don't think I should have been pulled over going 70 in a 65 when there was no one else on the high way. If I chose to flee, rather than be pulled over, take the ticket, and handle it through the courts if I chose, then that is my choice. Not the cops. If someone died in that chase, myself, officer, or bystander, it is a direct result of MY choice. Not the cops.

Do cops need to use good judgement? Of course. I'm not arguing that they don't. However, I, as a person being pulled over, am not in the position to question that good judgement.

And yes, I have been pulled over for no other reason than the car I drive and what I look like. And I have been issued false tickets. And I have won both cases in a court of law. Amazingly, I didn't have to flee and stupidly put my life as well as others at risk.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just pointing out that cops are human, and occasionally do things that are illegal themselves, so giving them blanket immunity is a really bad idea. Hell, we quail from the idea of living in a police state, don't we? Why is that? Because we know, instinctively, that unchecked power is something that no one should have. This sort of decision gives cops, it seems, that sort of power. All they have to do is say that they were in pursuit of someone and the discussion ends. That's a bad idea.

Okay, I murder someone. then I drive away. Should I still be allowed to just evade the cops?

The cops don't make the choice to run. If you hear sirens, you are legally required to pull over. There is no reason why there are other cars or people in the way. Stupidity is not the cops fault

He ran from the cops. He went 90 miles per hour. No one forced him to do that. I'm sorry he's 19 and paralyzed, but he fucked up. Actions have consequences. Don't flee the cops, or there will be consequences. This ain't rocked science.


And so we should be allowed to run from them if we disagree that we deserve to be pulled over?

Or do we have a legal system to handle these disputes?

I personally don't think I should have been pulled over going 70 in a 65 when there was no one else on the high way. If I chose to flee, rather than be pulled over, take the ticket, and handle it through the courts if I chose, then that is my choice. Not the cops. If someone died in that chase, myself, officer, or bystander, it is a direct result of MY choice. Not the cops.

Do cops need to use good judgement? Of course. I'm not arguing that they don't. However, I, as a person being pulled over, am not in the position to question that good judgement.

And yes, I have been pulled over for no other reason than the car I drive and what I look like. And I have been issued false tickets. And I have won both cases in a court of law. Amazingly, I didn't have to flee and stupidly put my life as well as others at risk.
That isn't actually the issue. It's the risk of public safety vs. catching whoever it is. It's an assessment and your caracatures of the situation don't actually answer it. If it is an armed suspect fleeing a scene or etc., then that person is a risk to public safety and a chase is the lesser of the two outcomes. If it is a spooked teenager or someone who was driving on a suspended lisence and makes a run for it that person has become a risk to public safety by being in the chase, but that risk can be mitigated by not chasing. It's not saying that the way to get out of a suspended license ticket is to run for it, but if you're creating a more dangerous situation than you are initially trying to enforce, than that has to be considered.

By giving a blanket of protection from any litigation the police are now protected from using public safety as a consideration in how they apprehend. I can now be counted as 'collateral damage' in chasing down a spooked teenager who prior to the chase wasn't a public threat to me.

Just because the fleer has discounted public safety or accountability shouldn't give the law enforcement an excuse to do so as well.

I'm not saying 'never chase,' and it's cartoonishly ridiculous for you to characterize it that way. But chases aren't always necessary, and the police do not always take proper account of public safety in their apprehensions and to protect them from all liability allows them to disregard that, which puts me at risk from the very people who are supposed to be protecting me.

I'd rather the courts be full of people trying to say they were apprehended too aggressively than a hospital full of collateral victims of high speed car chases.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just pointing out that cops are human, and occasionally do things that are illegal themselves, so giving them blanket immunity is a really bad idea. Hell, we quail from the idea of living in a police state, don't we? Why is that? Because we know, instinctively, that unchecked power is something that no one should have. This sort of decision gives cops, it seems, that sort of power. All they have to do is say that they were in pursuit of someone and the discussion ends. That's a bad idea.

It tends to be fairly obvious when they are in pursuit...the car fleeing is generally a good sign.

Not to mention, if you are pulled over, you have the right to continue driving to a place that is populated/well lit (atleast up here you do...don't know if that is a national thing). However, when you do so at 90 mph, I'd say you aren't just driving to a safe place anymore.

I'm not saying total immunity. Yeah, if the cop purposely rams a bystanders car or drive on a crowded sidewalk or drives through a storefront (again, all on purpose), then sure. He's responsible. But I've never heard of such a case, and see no point in time that it will ever come up (esp. considering you'd have to prove it was intentional and not related to the chase). However, if a person walks out into the street in the middle of a 90 mph police chase, or a car doesn't pull to the side as required by law, I have very little sympathy.

In fact Piresa it seems that you and I are in near total agreement about things the more we clarify. So why do we continue to debate our point?

Me:
The felon is responsible for any harm befalling them.
The Officer should be held responsible for any undue harm they directly cause to others, within reason.
You shouldn't be running anyway.
In most cases, letting them go for now is just plain lunacy

You:
The felon is responsible for any harm befalling them.
The Officer should be held responsible for any undue harm they directly cause to others, within reason.
You shouldn't be running anyway.

Yay! I was about to die out of despair of not being understood :p

I would like to add:
The felon is responsible for any harm they directly cause others.
The felon is also responsible for any harm the police cause, but to a lesser degree.

It is up to the police to decide when they want to pursue, but they need to be ready to take responsibility for their actions. I hope for their sake that they have the necessary training, because they should. If they don't, they should seek to get it if they wish to pursue.

For a real-life example, there was a string of burglaries in the north of jutland a few years ago. The felons had a fast sportscar that they used for getaways. The police did want to catch them, but they:
1) Weren't willing to risk public safety further, since the burglars were going at insane high speeds.
2) Couldn't keep up to them anyway.
In this case, the felons obviously did not pose as much threat as, say, a drunk driver, so maybe if the situation had been more of a threat to public safety, they might have sought to do more, but that's why the police have to consider each situation independently. It would have increased the danger to public safety to pursue. Sometimes, pursuing is dangerous, but still ends up decreasing the danger to the public safety.

I'm not saying total immunity. Yeah, if the cop purposely rams a bystanders car or drive on a crowded sidewalk or drives through a storefront (again, all on purpose), then sure. He's responsible. But I've never heard of such a case, and see no point in time that it will ever come up (esp. considering you'd have to prove it was intentional and not related to the chase). However, if a person walks out into the street in the middle of a 90 mph police chase, or a car doesn't pull to the side as required by law, I have very little sympathy.

Green light to walk. Guy crosses the street. Cars are driving too fast to be heard in time for the guy to step aside and there are obstructions blocking his view. The felon misses him, but the police hit him.

You're telling me you have little sympathy for the innocent bystander?

That isn't actually the issue. It's the risk of public safety vs. catching whoever it is. It's an assessment and your caracatures of the situation don't actually answer it. If it is an armed suspect fleeing a scene or etc., then that person is a risk to public safety and a chase is the lesser of the two outcomes. If it is a spooked teenager or someone who was driving on a suspended lisence and makes a run for it that person has become a risk to public safety by being in the chase, but that risk can be mitigated by not chasing. It's not saying that the way to get out of a suspended license ticket is to run for it, but if you're creating a more dangerous situation than you are initially trying to enforce, than that has to be considered. What are the physical, visable differences between a spooked teenager, somebody driving without a license, and someone who is carrying drugs? Or killed someone? Yes, robbing a bank would be easily detectable. Not all crimes are.

Great, you get the license plate number. So all I have to do is steal a car, and look scared, and I'm clear?

By giving a blanket of protection from any litigation the police are now protected from using public safety as a consideration in how they apprehend. I can now be counted as 'collateral damage' in chasing down a spooked teenager who prior to the chase wasn't a public threat to me.You hear sirens, pull to the right. The cops aren't going to hit you there. Pursuits aren't quite the most stealth thing in the world.

Just because the fleer has discounted public safety or accountability shouldn't give the law enforcement an excuse to do so as well.

I'm not saying 'never chase,' and it's cartoonishly ridiculous for you to characterize it that way. But chases aren't always necessary, and the police do not always take proper account of public safety in their apprehensions and to protect them from all liability allows them to disregard that, which puts me at risk from the very people who are supposed to be protecting me. Yes, it is somewhat a cartoonish statement. But how do you determine who is and is not a public threat? How do you tell the difference between that scared teen and that teen who is breaking a law? If you have a license, you should know that fleeing from police is a felony. If you do so, they have reasonable suspicion that you are running for a reason.

I'd rather the courts be full of people trying to say they were apprehended too aggressively than a hospital full of collateral victims of high speed car chases.
Interestingly, from what I've read about this case, it was about the fleeing person, not the bystanders. That is a fairly critical difference, I'd say.

Green light to walk. Guy crosses the street. Cars are driving too fast to be heard in time for the guy to step aside and there are obstructions blocking his view. The felon misses him, but the police hit him.

You're telling me you have little sympathy for the innocent bystander?

No, I don't particularly feel bad for him. Sirens are 118 decibels, give or take. An average rock concert is 115. This ain't a stealthy thing here. Cars cannot physically travel so fast that you would not hear them and then turn and see them a decent time before they got to you.

If he was deaf, I have a little more sympathy...maybe he didn't see the flashing lights in time. But for the average person? Nope.

the misunderstanding is that cops will mindlessly chase a felon down. this is wrong. if the felon drives into on-coming traffic, the officers will not follow them into same traffic. if the felon causes an accident where the road is blocked, the officers will NOT barrel on through. if a Full School Bus swerves infront of the officers cars, they will do what is necessary to avoid or minimize injury to innocents.

however, while the cops are doing this, the felon can, and has, driven at high speed through parking lots, through heavy traffic (both moving and stationary) through residential areas, even into oncoming traffic.

Also, the cops have these new fangled things called Radios where they can set up traps to stop the runner, or to halt traffic to minimize injury to innocents.

also, in the USA, cars are supposed to get out of the way (i.e. off the road, pull over to the side, whatever) when a siren is heard or the flashing lights seen.

No, I don't particularly feel bad for him. Sirens are 118 decibels, give or take. An average rock concert is 115. This ain't a stealthy thing here. Cars cannot physically travel so fast that you would not hear them and then turn and see them a decent time before they got to you.

If he was deaf, I have a little more sympathy...maybe he didn't see the flashing lights in time. But for the average person? Nope.

You must play True Crime where stupid shit like that happens on a routine basis and it is ALWAYS held against you.

You must play True Crime where stupid shit like that happens on a routine basis and it is ALWAYS held against you.

haha...only played it once for about 15 minutes...its more just a little bit of common sense. Police cars are anything but subtle.

Green light to walk. Guy crosses the street. Cars are driving too fast to be heard in time for the guy to step aside and there are obstructions blocking his view. The felon misses him, but the police hit him.

You're telling me you have little sympathy for the innocent bystander?

Green light to walk, but the pedestrian is still supposed to look to make sure traffic is stopped. supposing he does, and that it is one or two cars at the light. (any more and chances are the chasee will drive on the sidewalk or ram cars, or drive into on coming traffic.)

he crosses and the chasee zooms by. he get's hit by the police. the chasee is still at fault and will be held accoutable.

now, the police officer will not let that pedestrian die while he persues. if there are other police cars, one wills stop and an ambulance called.

if the officer's car is the only one, then chances are he will stop with him radioing the heading of the car he was persuing for other officers.

haha...only played it once for about 15 minutes...its more just a little bit of common sense. Police cars are anything but subtle.

Yet some people still manage to miss them. It once took me about twenty seconds to figure out where the sirens were coming from because I was wearing a helmet.

I first assumed it was from the highway I was about to pass under. But, I still heard it when I was passing under, so I looked around and saw nothing. Then I looked in my rear-view mirror and saw a police vehicle.

They just wanted to pass me, thankfully, but still... it is entirely possible to be acting legally and fail to realize that there is an emergency that you're in the direct path of.

Green light to walk, but the pedestrian is still supposed to look to make sure traffic is stopped. supposing he does, and that it is one or two cars at the light. (any more and chances are the chasee will drive on the sidewalk or ram cars, or drive into on coming traffic.)

he crosses and the chasee zooms by. he get's hit by the police. the chasee is still at fault and will be held accoutable.

now, the police officer will not let that pedestrian die while he persues. if there are other police cars, one wills stop and an ambulance called.

if the officer's car is the only one, then chances are he will stop with him radioing the heading of the car he was persuing for other officers.

And so they take responsibility for their actions. It is an accident, their actions should be viewed in this light and they may be forgiven.

But that should be done on a case by case basis.

This ruling would permit the same police officer to just continue speeding ahead, disregarding the life of the pedestrian, because you've given the police officer a carte blanche and he is not responsible for the accident he committed. It would permit it. That's what's wrong. I don't for one second believe that your average police officer would want to, but there's going to be a rotten apple that won't care and that will not be held responsible.

And the law will back him up.

That is what is wrong with this ruling. It implicitly permits police officers to shy away from their natural responsibility.

What is right with this ruling is that the chased is held responsible for his own actions. The damage that befalls him cannot be blamed on the police, regardless of what they do, because he had control over the situation in that he could stop trying to run away.

What are the physical, visable differences between a spooked teenager, somebody driving without a license, and someone who is carrying drugs? Or killed someone? Yes, robbing a bank would be easily detectable. Not all crimes are.
Often police know who they are pulling over and why.

Great, you get the license plate number. So all I have to do is steal a car, and look scared, and I'm clear?
You'd be driving a stolen car. And you're still trying to characterize it as 'It's okay to run/never okay to chase.' I'm saying that absolving police of all responsibility in a chase or of public safety is a bad idea. Please argue the point I'm making and not the one you wish I was making.

You hear sirens, pull to the right. The cops aren't going to hit you there. Pursuits aren't quite the most stealth thing in the world.
And yet my mother has been struck by a police officer who was rushing through traffic and was yielding. Because driving at high speed in traffic chasing another car doesn't actually give people that much time to yield and is in fact dangerous no matter how loud your sirens are. It's a reality. The fact of the matter is, it is not always the victims fault.

And, having been around car chases, there isn't enough warning most of the time to get out of the way. My car was almost clipped by a fleeing suspect barreling around a blind corner. I didn't have enough time to figure out where the siren was coming from much less get out of the way. Had I not already slowed down for another obstacle I would have been hit, had I been of foot there would in no way been enough time for me to get out of the way.

Yes, it is somewhat a cartoonish statement. But how do you determine who is and is not a public threat? How do you tell the difference between that scared teen and that teen who is breaking a law? If you have a license, you should know that fleeing from police is a felony. If you do so, they have reasonable suspicion that you are running for a reason.
And police have the responsibility of assessing the public safety in deciding the pursuit. You know what? I'm willing to even caveat that 9 out of 10 times they might be right. It's that 10th time that I'm worried about, and if they aren't accountable for that 10th time then they won't take it into consideration, and I'm the one who gets to pay that potential cost.


Interestingly, from what I've read about this case, it was about the fleeing person, not the bystanders. That is a fairly critical difference, I'd say.
The case that was being argued was about injury to the fleeing subject, if the law protects them from all litigation stemming from the chase and places all liability on the fleeing subject then it removes the responsibility for the public safety from the police officer who should have that responsibility, that's what I take issue with. Do you think that a fleeing suspect might not do it because in addition to whatever he's running from he might also be responsible for damage or injury during the chase? I don't place my trust in them, I do in the police officer because the police are theoretically accountable. Now they are less so, and I am less inclined to trust them as a result.

I'd generally advise that you don't run from the police, in most western countries. They tend to frown upon flight, and when they finally do get you, they'll tack some extra charges for resisting arrest on.

And so they take responsibility for their actions. It is an accident, their actions should be viewed in this light and they may be forgiven.

But that should be done on a case by case basis.

This ruling would permit the same police officer to just continue speeding ahead, disregarding the life of the pedestrian, because you've given the police officer a carte blanche and he is not responsible for the accident he committed. It would permit it. That's what's wrong. I don't for one second believe that your average police officer would want to, but there's going to be a rotten apple that won't care and that will not be held responsible.

And the law will back him up.

That is what is wrong with this ruling. It implicitly permits police officers to shy away from their natural responsibility.

What is right with this ruling is that the chased is held responsible for his own actions. The damage that befalls him cannot be blamed on the police, regardless of what they do, because he had control over the situation in that he could stop trying to run away.
Where does it state that?

where does it state that officers involved in a chase have no other responsibility to innocents? the ruling makes it not their fault, but where does it say that they are free from other responsiblities?

I have yet to see any American Police Officer not stop to render assistance to anyone injured in a chase. do you have any examples?

and yes, the person being chased is held responsible for his actions, his action of running and all damage related to his running is the chasee's responsiblity.

That isn't actually the issue. It's the risk of public safety vs. catching whoever it is. It's an assessment and your caracatures of the situation don't actually answer it. If it is an armed suspect fleeing a scene or etc., then that person is a risk to public safety and a chase is the lesser of the two outcomes. If it is a spooked teenager or someone who was driving on a suspended lisence and makes a run for it that person has become a risk to public safety by being in the chase, but that risk can be mitigated by not chasing. It's not saying that the way to get out of a suspended license ticket is to run for it, but if you're creating a more dangerous situation than you are initially trying to enforce, than that has to be considered.

By giving a blanket of protection from any litigation the police are now protected from using public safety as a consideration in how they apprehend. I can now be counted as 'collateral damage' in chasing down a spooked teenager who prior to the chase wasn't a public threat to me.

Just because the fleer has discounted public safety or accountability shouldn't give the law enforcement an excuse to do so as well.

I'm not saying 'never chase,' and it's cartoonishly ridiculous for you to characterize it that way. But chases aren't always necessary, and the police do not always take proper account of public safety in their apprehensions and to protect them from all liability allows them to disregard that, which puts me at risk from the very people who are supposed to be protecting me.

I'd rather the courts be full of people trying to say they were apprehended too aggressively than a hospital full of collateral victims of high speed car chases.

Many police in many parts of the country think exactly as you do. However, in many other parts of the country, chasing those scared teens occurs considerably more frequently. I think the prudence of those chases is something that is handled by local policy. But in even those cases, I fault the chased, not the chasers. That doesn't give police the right to violate their own regulations regarding when to and when not to chase, however.

In the Supreme Court case this thread was started over, the liability to third parties wasn't really established. In that case, it was the Chasee who was trying to fault the police for stopping him in such a way that led to his injury. I think that's an easy call and the Supreme Court made the right one.

Innocent bystanders are a bit trickier, but as for me, unless I have reason to suspect gross negligence or malevolence on the part of the chasing police officers, I'd lay the blame for any accidental injuries, death and damage where I feel they belong; at the feet of the escaping suspect.

Many police in many parts of the country think exactly as you do. However, in many other parts of the country, chasing those scared teens occurs considerably more frequently. I think the prudence of those chases is something that is handled by local policy. But in even those cases, I fault the chased, not the chasers. That doesn't give police the right to violate their own regulations regarding when to and when not to chase, however.

In the Supreme Court case this thread was started over, the liability to third parties wasn't really established. In that case, it was the Chasee who was trying to fault the police for stopping him in such a way that led to his injury. I think that's an easy call and the Supreme Court made the right one.

Innocent bystanders are a bit trickier, but as for me, unless I have reason to suspect gross negligence or malevolence on the part of the chasing police officers, I'd lay the blame for any accidental injuries, death and damage where I feel they belong; at the feet of the escaping suspect.

This is a rather spotty ancedotal argument I'm going to make, so I'll put that admission up front.

My brother ran. I don't support what he did, he shouldn't have ran and he (likely, I mean, I've ridden with the cat...) shouldn't have done what ever it is he did to have them after him in the first place. He's gotten a raw deal in the past and he used that as justifcation, whatever. Still, shouldn't have run. But he did.

Now, he's an incredibly fast driver. We grew up in race cars and he went to the national level before the money ran out, so his driving was a bit of a matter of pride (probably what made him think he could get away with it-again, not a justifcation and not neccisarily true. I think he would have been caught eventually anyway, but I digress). He was taking pains to stay off overly populated areas and not hit anything etc. (not making excuses, if he was really concerned with all of that he wouldn't have run at all).

The reason he did stop, however, is when he went through a particularly tricky section he looked back and the pursuing officers literally crashed through what he had just threaded through and he thought in their zeal to catch him they where going to hurt someone or themselves. It wasn't his driving that was causing the damage, it was their driving.

The police were driving past their ability to pursue him safely. The pursuit was indeed my brothers fault, but their judgment wasn't, and to paraphrase Krusty the Clown, shifting the blame to him doesn't suture my colon. He was far enough ahead of them that he wasn't forcing them to do anything. If they couldn't take the turns as fast as he could then it is their responsibility to take them at a safer speed and catch up with him in straighter sections or by coordinating with other officers ahead of him or any of the other number of options other than the Starsky and Hutch method.

Again, this doesn't mean that as long as you can drive better than the cop chasing you, you should get away with it. (even when that's the case, you can't drive better than the helicopter can fly...and as always there are more of them then there are of you). But the police still should have a responsibility for the public safety regardless of what they are doing.

They had a right to pursue my brother, but a responsibility to the public safety in that pursuit. If they shift that responsibility then it justifies unreasonable risk and absolves responsible parties of accountability and that makes me uneasy.

This is a rather spotty ancedotal argument I'm going to make, so I'll put that admission up front.

My brother ran. I don't support what he did, he shouldn't have ran and he (likely, I mean, I've ridden with the cat...) shouldn't have done what ever it is he did to have them after him in the first place. He's gotten a raw deal in the past and he used that as justifcation, whatever. Still, shouldn't have run. But he did.

Now, he's an incredibly fast driver. We grew up in race cars and he went to the national level before the money ran out, so his driving was a bit of a matter of pride (probably what made him think he could get away with it-again, not a justifcation and not neccisarily true. I think he would have been caught eventually anyway, but I digress). He was taking pains to stay off overly populated areas and not hit anything etc. (not making excuses, if he was really concerned with all of that he wouldn't have run at all).

The reason he did stop, however, is when he went through a particularly tricky section he looked back and the pursuing officers literally crashed through what he had just threaded through and he thought in their zeal to catch him they where going to hurt someone or themselves. It wasn't his driving that was causing the damage, it was their driving.

The police were driving past their ability to pursue him safely. The pursuit was indeed my brothers fault, but their judgment wasn't, and to paraphrase Krusty the Clown, shifting the blame to him doesn't suture my colon. He was far enough ahead of them that he wasn't forcing them to do anything. If they couldn't take the turns as fast as he could then it is their responsibility to take them at a safer speed and catch up with him in straighter sections or by coordinating with other officers ahead of him or any of the other number of options other than the Starsky and Hutch method.

Again, this doesn't mean that as long as you can drive better than the cop chasing you, you should get away with it. (even when that's the case, you can't drive better than the helicopter can fly...and as always there are more of them then there are of you). But the police still should have a responsibility for the public safety regardless of what they are doing.

They had a right to pursue my brother, but a responsibility to the public safety in that pursuit. If they shift that responsibility then it justifies unreasonable risk and absolves responsible parties of accountability and that makes me uneasy.


Is your brother available? I mght be able to use a skilled getaway driver. :D

Is your brother available? I mght be able to use a skilled getaway driver. :D

Before you hire him you might want to note that he didn't actually get away...

We both have that tacit fantasy that someone will hold us at gunpoint or some other situation that will somehow give us a blank check to go for it as fast as we can. Since I've been driving VW Vans that has been less the case...

I'd generally advise that you don't run from the police, in most western countries. They tend to frown upon flight, and when they finally do get you, they'll tack some extra charges for resisting arrest on.

They also tabulate all of the traffic infraction that are commited during the chase- running stop signs and red lights,speading,failure to yield etc...

Anyone that runs and is caught should be fully prosecuted with no pleading down to lesser charges.

In essence, if you get hurt when your car crashes after they ram you, it's not their fault. They have full permission to do it, and you can't sue them for violating your civil rights.


Thank God for that..

High-speed chases are tradition, dammit. It's our chief source of basic-cable entertainment in So. California, after all. :p

They also tabulate all of the traffic infraction that are commited during the chase- running stop signs and red lights,speading,failure to yield etc...

Our local news had a "follow-up essay" on high-speed chases once.. seems most of them do about 18 months if no one is hurt, sometimes less. They're caught, do some easy time, and are deported afterward, typically. At least here.

Thank God for that..

High-speed chases are tradition, dammit. It's our chief source of basic-cable entertainment in So. California, after all. :pyeah, I mean, what would shows like "wildest Police Chase" do for material if not for the High Speed Chase. :p

Our local news had a "follow-up essay" on high-speed chases once.. seems most of them do about 18 months if no one is hurt, sometimes less. They're caught, do some easy time, and are deported afterward, typically. At least here.
and considering for some of those, the orignal offense would've been a fine or ticket...

although most multiple offenses would result in suspension of licence or revoking of licence.

You give up your civil right not to be harmed if they have to ram your car off the road.

In essence, if you get hurt when your car crashes after they ram you, it's not their fault. They have full permission to do it, and you can't sue them for violating your civil rights.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-scotus0430,0,6953826.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

I applaud this decision. The police should not be hancuffed (no pun intended) when it comes to apprehending criminals. This teenager should not have done what he did.

No, because if the police are the cause of the accidental death or injuries, they have to accept that they didn't have the necessary training to carry out a high-speed chase and should be charged accordingly.

Most police are trained for high speed chases. No cop wants to get involved in one just like they do not want to get involved in a riot. There are many ways a police can stop a speeding vehicle without hurting anyone.

However, if the police are going to be putting other people at risk by chasing after them, then they should let them go.

What a brilliant fucking idea.

*Murders hundreds of people, jumps on bike, and peddals to the next town*

Cop: "Damn, we can't chase him, we might put citizens in danger!"
Cop2: "But what if by not chasing him, we put innocent in danger?"
Cop: "Yeah that and upholding the law."
Cop2: "Wanna go racial profile those indians at the Dunkin' Doughnuts while we stereotypically eat doughnuts I'm sure will be 90% fecal matter?"
Cop: "I love you."

And what if the police ram the schoolbus? They shouldn't, but are they confident and trained enough so that it doesn't happen? They can still pursue him, but anything that they directly cause, they are responsible for (with a single exception).

Yes. They at least are more careful than the person that is fleeing the cops. The person running will have zero regard for safety whereas the cops will have every regard for safety. And there is a lot of ways to stop a speeding runner.

I disagree. If the police ram that schoolbus instead of the chaser, the police are the cause of the injuries of deaths of anyone in that schoolbus (although, to be honest, they're probably more dead than the people in the bus).

Wrong. If it was not for the speeding runner, the school bus would not have been hit in the first place

The chaser may share the blame for any injuries or deaths caused by the police, but he is not directly responsible, unless he is the one that directly causes injury or death to an innocent bystander.

You have something against police apprehending criminals that try to flee by car? Where are you from?

As for himself, he is responsible for the chase, yeah, which means anything that happens to himself is entirely his own fault.

For once you are correct.

No he is not. If the police are the direct cause of an injury to an innocent bystander, it is the police that are guilty of having caused injury. They should not pursue a high-speed chase, if they are not comfortably trained and secure in the knowledge that they are responsible law enforcers that are aiming to first and foremost provide security for others and secondly to arrest.

And let the criminal get away? What if said criminal was a murderer? Do you want the cops not to do anything as he escapes by car from the police? I do not think so. I would want the cop to go after him and bring him to justice.

But they could and they wouldn't be held responsible, even though they should.

They should be held responsible for chasing a criminal and in the process injurying someone?

Ultimate responsibility for the chase goes to the chasee. Ultimate responsibility for innocent bystanders injured or killed goes to whomever caused it, whether it be the chased or the chasers.

Wrong again.

Ideally, get the numberplates (if any) and catch them later.

Not if it is a stolen vehicle and driving without a licenseplate is illegal. Just like it is illegal to drive without a license and registration.

The job of the police is to ensure public safety. If they harm the public in the process, they are indeed being counter-productive and should be held responsible.

Even if it is in the line of duty going after a wanted criminal?

The police is still above the chased, but that does not take away their responsibilities.

Which is to catch the criminals and making our streets safer.

I'd rather the courts be full of people trying to say they were apprehended too aggressively than a hospital full of collateral victims of high speed car chases.

And place more burden on the Courts than is already there? No wonder our justice system sucks.

Green light to walk. Guy crosses the street. Cars are driving too fast to be heard in time for the guy to step aside and there are obstructions blocking his view. The felon misses him, but the police hit him.

You're telling me you have little sympathy for the innocent bystander?

I'd place that on the person fleeing and if it is a high speed chase, there is normally more than one car involved in it. That means at least one car (presumely the car that hit the bystandard will withdraw from the chase to attend to the hit bystander with a call for paramedics.

On top of that, if you or they hurt anybody else in the process of chasing a getaway car, it's the getaway's fault. If the policeman gets hurt or killed, it is assualt or homicide against the getaways.

And that is as it should be. *nod*

Yeah, I have to agree with that.

I don't know if anybody else has mentioned it, but a policeman in Wheaton was recently killed by accident...he was pursuing some drug dealer on foot, and another police officer (coincidentally his best friend) (the police officer, not the drug dealer) was pursuing him in the car, and I guess he didn't see him and ran over the other officer. He was only like 23 or something, he had just graduated from college the year before. I guess his friend will never be the same...

As a former police officer, I will tell you that there were plenty of chases that I gave up, because it was scaring the shit out of me. On the other hand, this incident happened in North Carolina with the Greensboro City pd.

They were chasing a drunk driver. The driver took off, and two GPD cruisers chased him about 10 miles out of town. No other agency (at the time, that area was all rural) was available to assist. When they lost radio contact with their communications center, they called the chase off, and advised that they were not gaining on the running suspect.

About 5 miles after the GPD stopped the chase, the drunk driver hit another car head on, killing the driver. So, the family of the killed driver sued teh GPD officers, that they failed in their duty by not stopping a person that had multiple drunk driving convictions. Never mind that since they never got the vehicle to stop, they had no idea who was driving.

So, as citizens, we have to ask ourselves. What do we want our police officers to do? Do we want them to chase or not to chase?

Vic

As a former police officer, I will tell you that there were plenty of chases that I gave up, because it was scaring the shit out of me. On the other hand, this incident happened in North Carolina with the Greensboro City pd.

They were chasing a drunk driver. The driver took off, and two GPD cruisers chased him about 10 miles out of town. No other agency (at the time, that area was all rural) was available to assist. When they lost radio contact with their communications center, they called the chase off, and advised that they were not gaining on the running suspect.

About 5 miles after the GPD stopped the chase, the drunk driver hit another car head on, killing the driver. So, the family of the killed driver sued teh GPD officers, that they failed in their duty by not stopping a person that had multiple drunk driving convictions. Never mind that since they never got the vehicle to stop, they had no idea who was driving.

So, as citizens, we have to ask ourselves. What do we want our police officers to do? Do we want them to chase or not to chase?

Vic

The last thing we need is cops with more power.

As a former police officer, I will tell you that there were plenty of chases that I gave up, because it was scaring the shit out of me. On the other hand, this incident happened in North Carolina with the Greensboro City pd.

They were chasing a drunk driver. The driver took off, and two GPD cruisers chased him about 10 miles out of town. No other agency (at the time, that area was all rural) was available to assist. When they lost radio contact with their communications center, they called the chase off, and advised that they were not gaining on the running suspect.

About 5 miles after the GPD stopped the chase, the drunk driver hit another car head on, killing the driver. So, the family of the killed driver sued teh GPD officers, that they failed in their duty by not stopping a person that had multiple drunk driving convictions. Never mind that since they never got the vehicle to stop, they had no idea who was driving.

So, as citizens, we have to ask ourselves. What do we want our police officers to do? Do we want them to chase or not to chase?

Vic

Oy vey, I'd rather they have chased since it was a rural area with not a lot of stuff around to damage in the chase.

You give up your civil right not to be harmed if they have to ram your car off the road.

In essence, if you get hurt when your car crashes after they ram you, it's not their fault. They have full permission to do it, and you can't sue them for violating your civil rights.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-scotus0430,0,6953826.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

I have a genius idea. Follow the fucking law, and don't run from the cops. Then this shit won't happen.

Why does no one have respect for authority nowadays? God, I hate being part of this fucked-up generation.

You give up your civil right not to be harmed if they have to ram your car off the road.

If they have to ram your car off the road, any injuries you sustain are your own damn fault.

In essence, if you get hurt when your car crashes after they ram you, it's not their fault. They have full permission to do it, and you can't sue them for violating your civil rights.

That's because they didn't violate your civil rights. They did what they had to in order to protect the other citizens you were endangering.

Look, it's tragic that this happened. But it is completely and entirely the fault of a very stupid person who thought it would be better to initiate a high-speed chase - endangering other people - than face the police for driving on a suspended license. If he's going to blame anyone for this, it should be himself.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-scotus0430,0,6953826.story?coll=bal-home-headlines[/QUOTE]

So, as citizens, we have to ask ourselves. What do we want our police officers to do? Do we want them to chase or not to chase?

I'd say chase. We can't let people get away with crimes simply because they are willing to endanger others. Since it is the duty of the police to protect those others, they should do everything in their power to end the chase without deadly force, but they should not be afraid to use deadly force if necessary to end it when others are in danger.

And place more burden on the Courts than is already there? No wonder our justice system sucks.
First, since the decision is to no longer allow, they would be no more crowded than they are now.

Second-Overworked courts vs. overworked ERs...not a hard choice for me in the least.

Again, to characterize it as 'let criminals get away' is reductive. It's about accountability and the public safety, if you absolve police of any accountability in chase then that endangers the public safety.

Again, to characterize it as 'let criminals get away' is reductive. It's about accountability and the public safety, if you absolve police of any accountability in chase then that endangers the public safety.

Yes, it does. But that's not what this decision does. One of the big issues in this case was whether or not the officer had acted appropriately and done what he did in order to protect public safety. If it had appeared that his actions actually further endangered innocent bystanders, or if the camera had showed that the officer was reckless, it would have been quite a different story.

Im no fan of the police in general.
Most of them Ive met are assholes with badges, who believe thier job gives them the right to behave in ways the rest of society wouldnt do.
Most of them are macho schmucks the kiind of wich, used to be jocks in high-school.

That being said, I never go out of my way to make thier job any harder.
I dont feel the need to give them any shit they dont deserve.
In return...I get the same treatment.

The key is, not to do anything that draws thier attention to you.

Yes, it does. But that's not what this decision does. One of the big issues in this case was whether or not the officer had acted appropriately and done what he did in order to protect public safety. If it had appeared that his actions actually further endangered innocent bystanders, or if the camera had showed that the officer was reckless, it would have been quite a different story.

The Supreme Court decision means that it would no longer be an issue. That question is no longer asked since they can't be held responsible for their actions. With no liability it doesn't matter if he acted in the interest of public safety or not because he can't be held accountable.

The Supreme Court decision means that it would no longer be an issue. That question is no longer asked since they can't be held responsible for their actions. With no liability it doesn't matter if he acted in the interest of public safety or not because he can't be held accountable.

How does a Supreme Court decision that absolutely relied upon the idea that the officer acted appropriately do away with the issue of appropriate action?

What this decision says is that, if an officer is acting appropriately in trying to protect the public and executes a maneuver to stop the car of the person fleeing, that officer is not responsible for injuries sustained by the person driving that car. It also states that a such a maneuver can be used when the person fleeing poses an obviou danger to others. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why do people always try to pretend that SCOTUS decisions are so very much broader than they really are? People did the same thing with the Kelo decision, which was a very, very narrowly tailored decision (although I do personally disagree with it). All of a sudden, the tagline was, "ZOMG! SCOTUS SAYS WALMART CAN TAKE YOUR HOUSE!!!!!"

They also tabulate all of the traffic infraction that are commited during the chase- running stop signs and red lights,speading,failure to yield etc...

Anyone that runs and is caught should be fully prosecuted with no pleading down to lesser charges.

Truth, it's like opening a tab at a bar, and promptly going on a bender. It all accumulates.

I think that the police should always pursue suspects with the relentless determination of the Furies. No legitimate purpose is served by allowing criminals to flee. If anyone is harmed, the blood is on the hands of the suspect and not on the police who are merely doing their duty.

I have a genius idea. Follow the fucking law, and don't run from the cops. Then this shit won't happen.

Why does no one have respect for authority nowadays? God, I hate being part of this fucked-up generation.

You American?

Do you not appreciate the irony of that question?

It also means that innocent bystanders can be rammed by the police, if they are in a high-speed chase. That could be you, you know.

"It seems to be a law of nature, inflexible and inexorable, that those who will not risk cannot win." -- John Paul Jones

What is one death? A tragedy for the family, a feast for the media, and a political tool. That is what it amounts to. But these are abstract. In reality--in a world under the rule of law--order is preserved and instilled through the implementation and enforcement of law. It could happen, certainly, but the cost of inaction in the face of doubt is the failure of society.

"The best thing to do is the right thing; the next best thing is the wrong thing; but the worst is to do nothing." -- Winston Churchill

You American?

Do you not appreciate the irony of that question?

In what context?

It also means that innocent bystanders can be rammed by the police, if they are in a high-speed chase. That could be you, you know.

To be fair to police, they rarely endanger civilians in high speed chases by ramming a fleeing suspect. They only do so when the suspect is posing an already large threat. The "ram" technique is usually a done to fishtale someone, and is extremely rarely done at excessively high speeds(For many safety reasons). More often than not, to stop someone there are several techniques that are used in such cases, such as spike strips to road blocks to "boxing" the driver in. Ramming is pretty much the last option you utilize, as not only does it pose a very high risk to the suspect, but also to civilians and to police. Which is why it is done only in the most dire of situation, where a clear and present threat is established if the person is not stopped immediately.

Also, police will often back off from the driver for periods of time if the suspect is seen to act recklessly and dangerously if being followed, especially in residential areas(That doesn't mean they let the person go-just give the person a false feeling of being "safe", thus they don't act as recklessly). In when it is apparent that doing so will not curb recklessness to they pursue in such situations.

So, lemm see if I've got this right. The police can not be sued for damaging property or injuring or killing someone when they're in a high speed pursuit, no matter the circumstances.

I really don't like how abusable that it.

So, lemm see if I've got this right. The police can not be sued for damaging property or injuring or killing someone when they're in a high speed pursuit, no matter the circumstances.

I really don't like how abusable that it.

Actually, no. As stated, the case involved means that if an officer acts appropriately, he cannot be sued. If it is apparent that the officer is acting recklessly, then this protection is not necessarily applied. It's not a "under no circumstances" deal, at all, really.

So, lemm see if I've got this right. The police can not be sued for damaging property or injuring or killing someone when they're in a high speed pursuit, no matter the circumstances.

I really don't like how abusable that it.

I wouldn't like that either. Luckily, the SCOTUS decision doesn't say anything of the sort. It simply rules that deadly force can be used to stop a high speed pursuit that is endangering the lives of innocent bystanders - that an officer can ram the vehicle of the person that is fleeing or can perform other maneuvers to stop it. That officer can only do so, however, if it is clear that the person fleeing poses a significant risk to innocent bystanders and/or the officers. The decision also finds that, in this particular case, the officer's actions were warranted, and he was entitled to a summary judgement on qualified immunity - basically that no jury trial was necessary to determine that the officer had done nothing wrong, despite the tragic effects to the teenager who was fleeing.

Actually, no. As stated, the case involved means that if an officer acts appropriately, he cannot be sued. If it is apparent that the officer is acting recklessly, then this protection is not necessarily applied. It's not a "under no circumstances" deal, at all, really.

I wouldn't like that either. Luckily, the SCOTUS decision doesn't say anything of the sort. It simply rules that deadly force can be used to stop a high speed pursuit that is endangering the lives of innocent bystanders - that an officer can ram the vehicle of the person that is fleeing or can perform other maneuvers to stop it. That officer can only do so, however, if it is clear that the person fleeing poses a significant risk to innocent bystanders and/or the officers. The decision also finds that, in this particular case, the officer's actions were warranted, and he was entitled to a summary judgement on qualified immunity - basically that no jury trial was necessary to determine that the officer had done nothing wrong, despite the tragic effects to the teenager who was fleeing.

Ah, well that's much more reasonable.

Actually, no. As stated, the case involved means that if an officer acts appropriately, he cannot be sued. If it is apparent that the officer is acting recklessly, then this protection is not necessarily applied. It's not a "under no circumstances" deal, at all, really.

In fact, this renders the whole thing really a non issue.

"I was acting reasonably under the circumstances" is a defense in these matters. It's ALWAYS been a defense in these matters.

Now, "I was acting reasonably under the circumstances" creates qualified immunity. So instead of asserting reasonableness as a defense, you assert it as a cause for immunity.

Which, as said, is somewhat of a non issue. A defense is asserted at trial, in front a jury. A motion to dismiss due to immunity is asserted prior to trial, in a motion to the judge. You're basically making the same argument, just in different phases. This doesn't really do much, because, in my experience, judges tend to be, if anything, more conservative in finding in these matters. If you do enough to demonstrate reasonableness to be able to assert your immunity, you could have probably done it in front of a jury to.

The dissent in this case basically said reasonableness should have stayed an argument for a defense. The majority found defense a sufficient argument to assert immunity.

All that changes is basically WHEN you assert it. With this ruling, it's asserted before trial, and, as I said, typically the results would have been the same had you asserted it at trial. All this does...is save some money by avoiding having to have a trial and having the EXACT SAME argument asserted then.

Additionally of course, if a judge rejects the argument of reasonableness constituting immunity, you can STILL assert reasonableness at trial, as a defense.

In fact, this renders the whole thing really a non issue.

"I was acting reasonably under the circumstances" is a defense in these matters. It's ALWAYS been a defense in these matters.

Now, "I was acting reasonably under the circumstances" creates qualified immunity. So instead of asserting reasonableness as a defense, you assert it as a cause for immunity.

Which, as said, is somewhat of a non issue. A defense is asserted at trial, in front a jury. A motion to dismiss due to immunity is asserted prior to trial, in a motion to the judge. You're basically making the same argument, just in different phases. This doesn't really do much, because, in my experience, judges tend to be, if anything, more conservative in finding in these matters. If you do enough to demonstrate reasonableness to be able to assert your immunity, you could have probably done it in front of a jury to.

The dissent in this case basically said reasonableness should have stayed an argument for a defense. The majority found defense a sufficient argument to assert immunity.

All that changes is basically WHEN you assert it. With this ruling, it's asserted before trial, and, as I said, typically the results would have been the same had you asserted it at trial. All this does...is save some money by avoiding having to have a trial and having the EXACT SAME argument asserted then.

Additionally of course, if a judge rejects the argument of reasonableness constituting immunity, you can STILL assert reasonableness at trial, as a defense.

If you assert it before trial, it saves a lot of time and money that would otherwise be spent on additional attorney's fees and court costs.

In what context?

The US came about due to an insurrection, a fairly strong case of 'lack of respect for authority'.

If you assert it before trial, it saves a lot of time and money that would otherwise be spent on additional attorney's fees and court costs.

Yes, I know, I said that:

All this does...is save some money by avoiding having to have a trial and having the EXACT SAME argument asserted then.

Financially it does make a difference. The results in most situations would however LEGALLY be the same. And while yes it's nice people save money, looking at it from a legal issue it is really a non issue, as, since I said, it would rarely actually change any outcome.

Yes, I know, I said that:



Financially it does make a difference. The results in most situations would however LEGALLY be the same. And while yes it's nice people save money, looking at it from a legal issue it is really a non issue, as, since I said, it would rarely actually change any outcome.

I'm a fan of cases that die in the discovery phase.

I'm a fan of cases that die in the discovery phase.

meh, most issues wouldn't be a discovery. 12(b)(6) motions and their corresponding state rules are generally asserted right after the claim is made. You would not even get to discovery.

Although it's difficult to demonstrate that ones actions are reasonable based purely on facts in a claim, any good lawyer would allege enough to substantiate that. So yeah, mostly it would be a discovery matter, then a rule 56/corresponding state rule motion for summary judgement

The US came about due to an insurrection, a fairly strong case of 'lack of respect for authority'.

actually, the Insurrection part came well after all other avenues were exhausted, including Mr. Franklin and others pleading their case directly to the kings court.

so it's not that the Founding Fathers had a Lack of Respect for Authority, but more of that the British Government caused the Colonies to take insurrection as their only way out.

How does a Supreme Court decision that absolutely relied upon the idea that the officer acted appropriately do away with the issue of appropriate action?

What this decision says is that, if an officer is acting appropriately in trying to protect the public and executes a maneuver to stop the car of the person fleeing, that officer is not responsible for injuries sustained by the person driving that car. It also states that a such a maneuver can be used when the person fleeing poses an obviou danger to others. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why do people always try to pretend that SCOTUS decisions are so very much broader than they really are? People did the same thing with the Kelo decision, which was a very, very narrowly tailored decision (although I do personally disagree with it). All of a sudden, the tagline was, "ZOMG! SCOTUS SAYS WALMART CAN TAKE YOUR HOUSE!!!!!"
Well...

In fact, this renders the whole thing really a non issue.

"I was acting reasonably under the circumstances" is a defense in these matters. It's ALWAYS been a defense in these matters.

Now, "I was acting reasonably under the circumstances" creates qualified immunity. So instead of asserting reasonableness as a defense, you assert it as a cause for immunity.

Which, as said, is somewhat of a non issue. A defense is asserted at trial, in front a jury. A motion to dismiss due to immunity is asserted prior to trial, in a motion to the judge. You're basically making the same argument, just in different phases. This doesn't really do much, because, in my experience, judges tend to be, if anything, more conservative in finding in these matters. If you do enough to demonstrate reasonableness to be able to assert your immunity, you could have probably done it in front of a jury to.

The dissent in this case basically said reasonableness should have stayed an argument for a defense. The majority found defense a sufficient argument to assert immunity.

All that changes is basically WHEN you assert it. With this ruling, it's asserted before trial, and, as I said, typically the results would have been the same had you asserted it at trial. All this does...is save some money by avoiding having to have a trial and having the EXACT SAME argument asserted then.

Additionally of course, if a judge rejects the argument of reasonableness constituting immunity, you can STILL assert reasonableness at trial, as a defense.

...that's what I get for just reading the OPs characterization of the article and not reading the article itself. I was arguing the idea of giving police immunity from all responsibility for anything that happens in a chase, not the actual court case, which if 101's characterization is accurate (still haven't read it, I just trust 101's interpretations more than I do ROs) then my argument doesn't hold up as much.

but what is forgotten is that there is evidence that would show if the situation defined if the officer's actions were reasonable.

Police Dash Cams and their Radio Transcripts.

so I don't believe it's a 'blanket' immunity, but one that if it can be proven to be reasonable and appropriate, then it will be applied.

Let me try to clarify a little bit, and it has to do with what the idea of "immunity" is.

Immunity, it the most simple form, means that you can't be sued for it. Immunity is asserted prior to trial, before a jury hears anything.

There are two types of immunities. General immunity, and qualified immunity. General immunity is a blanket "you can't sue me for that, period." For example, you can't sue the president for the wrongful death of a soldier in a war he started. You just can't. General immunity, sovereign immunity. You just can not.

Qualified immunity is more fact specific. It is a "you can't sue me for this if ... " In other words, as long as certain circumstances have been shown to be true, you can't bring a suit.

A general rule has been you can not sue police for decisions they make, regardless of the outcome of those decisions, provided they made them reasonably. That's qualified immunity "You can't sue me for this if I came to a reasonable conclusion."

Now, immunity is determined by a judge, before any jury hears anything, as I said. What would happen in cases like this is, someone sues a cop, a cop says "nope, I was behaving reasonably, you can't sue me". The judge would then look at the evidence and decide if the cop was acting reasonably. If the judge decides the cop was acting reasonably, that cop has immunity. No suit can be brought.

Before this ruling, there wasnt this immunity, so you'd go to trial. HOWEVER the defense of "I was behaving reasonably" was still perfectly, 100% valid. A cop could still argue in front of a jury that his actions were reasonably. If a jury believed it, no liability, because there was no negligent act (negligence defined as a failure to act reasonably, if one acts reasonably, you can't sue him).

In ALL case, the cop could always always always ALWAYS argue reasonableness. And that was a perfectly valid defense.

This ruling didn't let cops get away with more. Or make them immune from any decision they make. Or let them get away with reckless acts.

All this ruling did is shifted who makes the decision about whether the cop acted reasonably. From the jury after a trial, to the judge before the trial.

That's it. It just changed who makes the decision. The dissent basically said it should be a jury question, rather than a judge question.

But the question is still the same as it's always been.

But the question is still the same as it's always been.

In my experience, it's far easier to convince a judge that you were acting responsibly, than to convince some juries.

In my experience, it's far easier to convince a judge that you were acting responsibly, than to convince some juries.

it...varies, actually. A great deal really. I have found in many instances just the opposite. Judges often times HATE being triers of fact. It bugs them. Often they'll defer questions like that to a jury.

So really it swings both ways. Some judges more, some less....

I wouldn't like that either. Luckily, the SCOTUS decision doesn't say anything of the sort. It simply rules that deadly force can be used to stop a high speed pursuit that is endangering the lives of innocent bystanders - that an officer can ram the vehicle of the person that is fleeing or can perform other maneuvers to stop it. That officer can only do so, however, if it is clear that the person fleeing poses a significant risk to innocent bystanders and/or the officers. The decision also finds that, in this particular case, the officer's actions were warranted, and he was entitled to a summary judgement on qualified immunity - basically that no jury trial was necessary to determine that the officer had done nothing wrong, despite the tragic effects to the teenager who was fleeing.SCOTUS is an appellate court, and does not have original jurisdiction. As such it can only make judgements on the decisions of lower courts.

In this case what was being contested was not the outcome of a trial, but a lower judge's decision that this case ought to be allowed to go to trial. Hence SCOTUS has not ruled that this police officer was right to use deadly force*, but that the police cannot be tried for using deadly force in such a situation.

* From what I have read and seen the Police Officer appears to have resorted to deadly force too quickly. The kid did not appear to be driving recklessly, nor was he being chased in a residential area, and only one other attempt was made to force him to stop.

it...varies, actually. A great deal really. I have found in many instances just the opposite. Judges often times HATE being triers of fact. It bugs them. Often they'll defer questions like that to a jury.

So really it swings both ways. Some judges more, some less....

and does anyone know that had this gone to trial, who could ask trial by jury or trial by judge? the plaintiff or Defendant?

and does anyone know that had this gone to trial, who could ask trial by jury or trial by judge? the plaintiff or Defendant?

A "trial by judge" is refered ot as a bench trial. Technically anyone can REQUEST one, however the 7th amendment grants both parties the right to a jury trial in suits at common law. So in a suit on federal law, either party may request, but the opposing party must waive their right to a jury trial. In other words, if any party in a civil suit under federal common law wants a jury trial, they have a right to have one.

The 7th amendment has not been incorporated into the 14th, so state rules vary.

SCOTUS is an appellate court, and does not have original jurisdiction. As such it can only make judgements on the decisions of lower courts.

Indeed.

In this case what was being contested was not the outcome of a trial, but a lower judge's decision that this case ought to be allowed to go to trial. Hence SCOTUS has not ruled that this police officer was right to use deadly force*, but that the police cannot be tried for using deadly force in such a situation.

SCOTUS is also clear that the reason this officer cannot be tried for using deadly force is that his actions were justified by the situation at hand. Without that, the lower courts would have been correct in denying him immunity.

* From what I have read and seen the Police Officer appears to have resorted to deadly force too quickly. The kid did not appear to be driving recklessly, nor was he being chased in a residential area, and only one other attempt was made to force him to stop.

Not driving recklessly??!?!?!?!?! Are you freaking kidding? He'd already hit one officer's car, he was ignoring traffic signals, and was driving recklessly fast down a two lane highway. Maybe he wouldn't have hurt anyone, but chances were high that he would. I'd rather see one person injured - the guilty party - than innocent bystanders. In truth, if the results hadn't been so tragic - if Harris had not been paralyzed - no one would have ever questioned the officer's actions.

but what is forgotten is that there is evidence that would show if the situation defined if the officer's actions were reasonable.

Police Dash Cams and their Radio Transcripts.

so I don't believe it's a 'blanket' immunity, but one that if it can be proven to be reasonable and appropriate, then it will be applied.

Are you still arguing with someone who already admitted he got the situation wrong? I mean, admitting being wrong is rare here, but geez...

Are you still arguing with someone who already admitted he got the situation wrong? I mean, admitting being wrong is rare here, but geez...

nope, just the fact that for the imunity to be applied it still has to be proven that the offier did meet the qualifications. that it was necessary and that it was also reasonable.

and that it's not just a "the cop said"/"the plaintiff said" situation.

Arthais101 has done his usual fine job of laying out the law.

The only really suprising aspect of the ruling is a technical one about the Supreme Court esentially reviewing the facts de novo and how they say the record contradicts the plaintiff's claims rather than presuming the facts in favor of the plaintiff as would normally be the case at summary judgment. (I don't expect laypersons to follow the significance of these points.)

The Court did a similiar thing on qualified immunity in Saucier v. Katz (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-1977), 533 U.S. 194 (2001), but this takes it a step further.

One other thing is noteworthy about the case, and that is that the Court put the video of the case online and refers to that in its opinion. Sort of saying "judge for yourself."

Just to be thorough, here is a link to the pdf of the decision (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf) and here is a link to the Real Player video (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/scott_v_harris.rmvb).

Arthais101 has done his usual fine job of laying out the law.

The only really suprising aspect of the ruling is a technical one about the Supreme Court esentially reviewing the facts de novo and how they say the record contradicts the plaintiff's claims rather than presuming the facts in favor of the plaintiff as would normally be the case at summary judgment. (I don't expect laypersons to follow the significance of these points.)

I don't think that's a bad thing though. From what I understood, they're basically saying, "Don't just assume the plaintiff is telling the truth if the evidence in the case makes it obvious that this is not the case." I got the impression that, sans evidence to the contrary, the courts would be expected to presume the facts in favor of the plaintiff as before.


As for the video, I think I've seen it before, but it's been a while. Does anyone have a link to a non-realplayer version?

nope, just the fact that for the imunity to be applied it still has to be proven that the offier did meet the qualifications. that it was necessary and that it was also reasonable.

and that it's not just a "the cop said"/"the plaintiff said" situation.

Well, its a bit more complicated than that. I don't really want to get into the details, but the burden of proof is on the one claiming qualified immunity doesn't apply. And the Court's decision makes that burden a heavier one.

The cop doesn't have to prove that his/her actions were necessary or reasonable. Instead, it is for the injured party to prove that the cop's actions (a) violated a constitutional right and (b) the constitutional right was clearly established prior to the violation. In Fourth Amendment cases (among others), whether or not there was a constitutional violation depends on the reasonableness of the cop's actions (namely the search or seizure, here being the seizure).

In the district court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges had taken the facts in light most favorable to the plaintiff and ruled that under those circumstances a jury could find a violation of constitutional right. The Supreme Court has taken the unusual step of saying that, because of the video, the facts can't be assumed to be as the plaintiff alleges. Instead, the Court says that no reasonable jury could ever have found the cop's actions unreasonable.

In the meantime, the Court uses some rather sweeping language at the beginning and the end of the case that implies a broader holding than is really suggested by the heart of the case. For example, the Court states near the end:

Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: A police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous highspeed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.

This suggests a hard-and-fast rule, even though the underlying discussion was very fact-specific.

I hope this makes sense.

Well, its a bit more complicated than that. I don't really want to get into the details, but the burden of proof is on the one claiming qualified immunity doesn't apply. And the Court's decision makes that burden a heavier one.

The cop doesn't have to prove that his/her actions were necessary or reasonable. Instead, it is for the injured party to prove that the cop's actions (a) violated a constitutional right and (b) the constitutional right was clearly established prior to the violation. In Fourth Amendment cases (among others), whether or not there was a constitutional violation depends on the reasonableness of the cop's actions (namely the search or seizure, here being the seizure).

In the district court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges had taken the facts in light most favorable to the plaintiff and ruled that under those circumstances a jury could find a violation of constitutional right. The Supreme Court has taken the unusual step of saying that, because of the video, the facts can't be assumed to be as the plaintiff alleges. Instead, the Court says that no reasonable jury could ever have found the cop's actions unreasonable.

In the meantime, the Court uses some rather sweeping language at the beginning and the end of the case that implies a broader holding than is really suggested by the heart of the case. For example, the Court states near the end:

Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: A police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous highspeed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.

This suggests a hard-and-fast rule, even though the underlying discussion was very fact-specific.

I hope this makes sense.
ah, thanks, so any injury to the plaintiff that was obtained in the act of arrest generally (that is there are execptions) fall into this immunity?

what of anyone not involved in the chase? say a car that was hit by either chaser or officer?

Indeed.



SCOTUS is also clear that the reason this officer cannot be tried for using deadly force is that his actions were justified by the situation at hand. Without that, the lower courts would have been correct in denying him immunity.


Um...sorta kinda. When asserting the immunity, the burden goes to the party trying to get around the immunity. So it was not so much that the cop demonstrated his actions were justified insomuch as the plaintiff couldn't demonstrate that they weren't.

The police aren't the cause of the injuries and deaths. The chase is. Ergo, the chaser is.But since when do the police chase somebody for a reason? Police are the police, they chase and shoot who they want.

ah, thanks, so any injury to the plaintiff that was obtained in the act of arrest generally (that is there are execptions) fall into this immunity?

what of anyone not involved in the chase? say a car that was hit by either chaser or officer?

Um, not quite.

Any injury ANYBODY sustains as a result of the chase falls into this immunity provided that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there could be a finding that that the cop did not act reasonably.

In essence, the presumption is the cop acted reasonably. It is up to the plaintiff to rebut that assumption. If the plaintiff fails, the cop is presumed to have acted reasonably, and his immunity holds.

edit: that was a garbled mess. Basically, in most circumstances, when there is not an issue of immunity, the judge looks at everything and goes "OK, is there ANY chance a jury could find liability here? Yes, ok, we go to trial".

When there's an issue of immunity the judge has to look at it with the eye more in favor of the defendant. The district courts and court of appeals allowed this case to go to trial because they did not look at it as they should for the purposes of an immunity.

SCOTUS said no, you have to look at it as an immunity, this is fine. What was surprising is SCOTUS then proceeded to say "and, as we look at it in the eyes of the defendant's immunity, he wins".

This is not very common for the court to do. Often times in something like this they'll say "you applied the wrong analysis, go back and do it again".

This time they actually did it themselves...

Um, not quite.

Any injury ANYBODY sustains as a result of the chase falls into this immunity provided that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there could be a finding that that the cop did not act reasonably.

In essence, the presumption is the cop acted reasonably. It is up to the plaintiff to rebut that assumption. If the plaintiff fails, the cop is presumed to have acted reasonably, and his immunity holds.

edit: that was a garbled mess. Basically, in most circumstances, when there is not an issue of immunity, the judge looks at everything and goes "OK, is there ANY chance a jury could find liability here? Yes, ok, we go to trial".

When there's an issue of immunity the judge has to look at it with the eye more in favor of the defendant. The district courts and court of appeals allowed this case to go to trial because they did not look at it as they should for the purposes of an immunity.

SCOTUS said no, you have to look at it as an immunity, this is fine. What was surprising is SCOTUS then proceeded to say "and, as we look at it in the eyes of the defendant's immunity, he wins".

This is not very common for the court to do. Often times in something like this they'll say "you applied the wrong analysis, go back and do it again".

This time they actually did it themselves...

Very well explained. As usual.

Very well explained. As usual.

Law is, I fear, a language of subtlety as you know. The difference between "the defendant demonstrated that a jury could find in his favor" may appear substantially similar to "the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a jury could not find in the defendant's favor", but in law, the difference is paramount.

Unfortunatly, try as I might, there is no easier way of saying "the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a jury could not find in the defendant's favor". Which of course leads to linguistic gymnastics trying to explain legal concepts to legal laymen when really there just is no better way of saying it.

nope, just the fact that for the imunity to be applied it still has to be proven that the offier did meet the qualifications. that it was necessary and that it was also reasonable.

and that it's not just a "the cop said"/"the plaintiff said" situation.

Oh my god, you are, you really really are. Fuck this place is tenacious. I admitted I was wrong-that I didn't read the article and got the situation wrong, I deferred to another persons post and yet you're still arguing with me...dear god...I didn't even make a point in those two posts except to admit I didn't read the article and got it wrong and that someone else, in a post I quoted was probably right, and you're still arguing with me...

Wow. Just...wow...no wonder no one admits they're wrong around here...

Indeed.



SCOTUS is also clear that the reason this officer cannot be tried for using deadly force is that his actions were justified by the situation at hand. Without that, the lower courts would have been correct in denying him immunity.I think others have said it better, but SCOTUS is over stepping its juridiction in this case by announcing that no officer is ever unreasonable in his attempt to terminate a pursuit if it is reasonable to assume that the pursuit is putting the lives of innocent bystanders at risk.

They have clearly overstepped their mark here. All that should have been said is that - in this case it has not been shown that the officer was unreasonable in his attempt to terminate the pursuit.

Not driving recklessly??!?!?!?!?! Are you freaking kidding? He'd already hit one officer's car, he was ignoring traffic signals, and was driving recklessly fast down a two lane highway. Maybe he wouldn't have hurt anyone, but chances were high that he would. I'd rather see one person injured - the guilty party - than innocent bystanders. In truth, if the results hadn't been so tragic - if Harris had not been paralyzed - no one would have ever questioned the officer's actions.I'd refer you back to Justice Steven's statements that indicated most times when he over took cars, and never overtook a car when upcoming traffic was coming - indeed he slowed down and waited for traffic to pass instead of speeding up and overtaking. In this respect the police are causing more danger to the public in continuing the pursuit - 3+ cars driving at high speed instead of 1.

He ran two red lights, with police sirens blaring. Neither of which was anywhere likely to cause a traffic accident as there was so little traffic on the road.

When did he hit another officer's car? In the car park, because if anything that looked like the officer cliped the back of the driver's car.

And these innocent bystanders who were at serious risk of physical harm - are we talking about the ones that have safely pulled over on the side of the road; the ones that are driving past, unfazed, in the opposite direction; or the ones that were safely overtaken?

“At the time of the ramming, apart from speeding andrunning two red lights, Harris was driving in a non-aggressive fashion (i.e., without trying to ram or run into the officers). Moreover, . . . Scott’s path on theopen highway was largely clear. The videos introduced into evidence show little to no vehicular (or pedestrian) traffic, allegedly because of the late hour and the police blockade of the nearby intersections.Finally, Scott issued absolutely no warning (e.g., over the loudspeaker or otherwise) prior to using deadly force.”“Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with aweapon or there is probable cause to believe that hehas committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given.”

Ramming is meant to be the last resort. It was this officer's second choice. They were also on a long stretch of road with no other cars about when the ramming took place. It would seem feasible to give some warning before, but none was given. The course of action, as such, was unreasonable.

I think others have said it better, but SCOTUS is over stepping its juridiction in this case by announcing that no officer is ever unreasonable in his attempt to terminate a pursuit if it is reasonable to assume that the pursuit is putting the lives of innocent bystanders at risk.

They have clearly overstepped their mark here. All that should have been said is that - in this case it has not been shown that the officer was unreasonable in his attempt to terminate the pursuit.

That's...kind of what they did. Read Cat Tribe's post on page 8. The language at times seems to be sweeping, but a close read does indicate that they are laying down a very fact specific test that is far narrower than it might appear at first glance.

Ok folks, here is the little part that no one has talked about.

It is called negligence. If the injured party can prove that the officer was acting in a capacity that he was not properly trained for, then he can win. Of course, he/she would have to sue in civil court, since the USSC has ruled that the officer would be protected under the color of office.

The biggest part to this is to prove that the officer had a duty to act, or not to act if action would bring harm. Then, we have to prove that a harm occurred due to the direct action of the officer***he was chasing Homer, Homer wrecked and got you hurt***We have just proved a duty to act and a harm. However, in order to win the case, we would have to prove that the officer acted outside the scope of his employment, or duty, or was engaged in an action in which he was not properly trained to do or was properly equipped to work with.

This sounds like the office will be in the clear. However, remember, that in the US, civil trials have to be done in civil court, and a jury will be sitting on this trial. Odds of winning in this case would most likely be 50%.

Vic

Ok folks, here is the little part that no one has talked about.

It is called negligence. If the injured party can prove that the officer was acting in a capacity that he was not properly trained for, then he can win. Of course, he/she would have to sue in civil court, since the USSC has ruled that the officer would be protected under the color of office.

The biggest part to this is to prove that the officer had a duty to act, or not to act if action would bring harm. Then, we have to prove that a harm occurred due to the direct action of the officer***he was chasing Homer, Homer wrecked and got you hurt***We have just proved a duty to act and a harm. However, in order to win the case, we would have to prove that the officer acted outside the scope of his employment, or duty, or was engaged in an action in which he was not properly trained to do or was properly equipped to work with.

This sounds like the office will be in the clear. However, remember, that in the US, civil trials have to be done in civil court, and a jury will be sitting on this trial. Odds of winning in this case would most likely be 50%.

Vic


Um...yes, that is indeed the prima facie elements for a negligence claim. I'm not sure what that has to do with a claim of immunity however....

Um...yes, that is indeed the prima facie elements for a negligence claim. I'm not sure what that has to do with a claim of immunity however....

claim of immunity is no defense against negligence. It has been ruled by all the courts. As a retired career fire officer, I did not have any claim of immunity if I acted in negligence, or was negligent in performing my duties.

Vic

claim of immunity is no defense against negligence.

ummm.....

The point is immunity bars a suit unless certain things can be shown prior to trial. That's kinda the point here.

Wow. Just...wow...no wonder no one admits they're wrong around here...:confused:
the purpose of the post wasn't to hammer anything to you. I am NOT arguing with anyone.

you asked.
Are you still arguing with someone who already admitted he got the situation wrong? I mean, admitting being wrong is rare here, but geez...and my answer was NOPE! I wasn't arguing with anyone.

just stating something that no one considered.

claim of immunity is no defense against negligence. It has been ruled by all the courts. As a retired career fire officer, I did not have any claim of immunity if I acted in negligence, or was negligent in performing my duties.

Vic

All the courts rule, huh?

I think you are confused. Mere negligence does not void a claim of immunity. To the contrary, unless you can pierce the immunity defense, you cannot bring a cause for negligence.

I don't normally "pull rank" on here for a lot of reasons, but Arthais101 and I are both attorneys. I personally have worked on more than one of this qualified immunity cases. We aren't just whistling Dixie, here.

If you believe the courts have ruled as you put forth, then please provide us with some examples. A link to one of these cases

:confused:
the purpose of the post wasn't to hammer anything to you. I am NOT arguing with anyone.

you asked.
and my answer was NOPE! I wasn't arguing with anyone.

just stating something that no one considered.

What did it have to do with me? If you have a new point, you don't need to quote anyone.

What did it have to do with me? If you have a new point, you don't need to quote anyone.

actually, it was an additional point to Arthais101's assesment that you quoted on, but I clicked the wrong link. :p Apologies. Will remove offending quote.