"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> Better the crook go free than risk being sued seems to be the desire
> of the liberal courts. Ya gotta wonder why any of us ever thought
> about pinning on the badge and going forth to fight crime and/or evil.
> The citizens, who have never walked in our shoes second guess what
> should or should not have been done in that split second.
>
> Bad cops should be punished for stepping outside the bounds of moral
> decency... whether it's graft or abusing the power of the badge. But
> a lot of damn good cops have been lost to second guessing. Sadly, it
> only takes a small percent to make all look bad.
>
> They say a camera doesn't lie, but what it records is dependent upon
> the reviewer's bias, pro or con.
>
> Yep, I am biased in favor of the cops. I've walked in those shoes and
> know how fast something can go from being nothing to a full blown war.

Reading the articles, it seems as though the video squashed all debate. The
majority obviously felt that the video alone was a compelling argument on
the side of the police. Having watched it, I agree wholeheartedly.

This ruling is made against the backdrop of the ongoing public debate over
high speed chases. I imagine that almost all such pursuits can be
second-guessed after the fact, as to whether or not continuing the chase was
warranted. I think that the police now show a very healthy respect for the
environment in which the chase takes place (or doesn't), which is a direct
result of that debate. But I'll give great weight to whatever decision the
police make in these cases.

In this particular case, this 19 year old kid could have chosen to pull over
at any time in the 8-minute event without any lasting effects. Talk about
choices...

dwight

>
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:49:56 -0400, "dwight" >
> wrote:
>
>>Let's see if I have this right...
>>
>>Police take off after a black Caddy doing 73mph in a 55mph zone, which
>>leads
>>to a high speed pursuit in the black Georgia night. The 19 year old yahoo
>>behind the wheel of the Caddy is obviously of no mind to pull over. After
>>almost 8 minutes of the chase through light traffic, one police cruiser
>>bumps the Caddy from behind, at which point yahoo loses control of the car
>>and careens off the road into (what appears to be) a telephone pole.
>>
>>Bottom line, the yahoo (who, originally, was guilty of driving at 18mph
>>over
>>the posted speed limit) is now a quadraplegic.
>>
>>Yahoo sues the police officer who "caused the crash" under the terms of
>>the
>>4th Amendment (some weird logic about unlawful seizure?).
>>
>>"In this case, both a lower court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
>>11th
>>Circuit ruled in favor of [the yahoo]. The 11th Circuit said that [the
>>officer's] actions constituted deadly force and that it was unreasonable
>>because the officer had no reason to think [yahoo] had done anything more
>>than violate traffic laws. The police gave chase because they clocked him
>>going 73 mph in a 55-mph zone.
>>
>>'Far from being the cautious and controlled driver the lower court
>>depicts,
>>what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-style car
>>chase
>>of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent
>>bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury,' wrote Justice Antonin
>>Scalia.
>>Scalia was incredulous that the lower courts had said Harris's case
>>against
>>Scott could proceed."
>>
>>(source: http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1241449/, among others)
>>
>>Now, I've viewed the video posted on the Supreme Court's website, and I
>>have
>>to say, "What the $*^&$# was that yahoo thinking?!?" The video is about
>>92MB
>>and runs some 15+ minutes, showing what the onboard cameras of the police
>>cruisers saw that night. First, you see the Caddy from the lead pursuit
>>cruiser, then you get the same chase as seen from a second cruiser, the
>>one
>>which ultimately knocks the Caddy into the woods.
>>
>>(video at:
>>http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio..._v_harris.rmvb)
>>
>>Watching the California Patrol in hot pursuit after a white Bronco doing
>>20mph for hours on end is one thing, but the chase in this video is
>>typical
>>of the ones being debated over recent years. At what point do the police
>>engage in pursuit, and when do they just let the evil-doer go, hoping to
>>pick him up later.
>>
>>The original crime here was not armed robbery or carjacking or leaving the
>>scene of an accident, it was doing 73mph in a 55 zone. (Remember: I've
>>said
>>before that 72 is the magic number.) I have no idea why yahoo decided to
>>try
>>to escape, rather than simply pull over and accept the damn ticket.
>>
>>When the police officer is chasing down a speeder with siren and lights
>>on,
>>and the speeder just keeps on going, putting any number of other motorists
>>in danger, the police officer can now use deadly force (i.e.: his front
>>bumper) with a little more authority, thanks to today's Supreme Court
>>ruling.
>>
>>I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that yahoo compounded his possible
>>speeding ticket with resisting arrest (always a good generic criminal
>>activity, when everything else fails). But then leading the police on an
>>8-minute chase around any number of other motorists (most of whom had the
>>good sense to pull over to the side of the road) has to be a serious
>>crime.
>>The potential for disaster is all over that video.
>>
>>I would have dismissed this case from the start.
>>
>>dwight
>>www.tfrog93.com
>>