Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 10/28/2006 12:22:59 PM EDT
This could get very interesting. Many large angencies employee a manuver termed a PITT that falls under potentially lethal force.

I hope the Geogia attorneys arguing the case are competent.  


Supreme Court Hears Georgia Police Chase Case


The Associated Press

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear the case of a county sheriff's deputy who purposely bumped his car into another vehicle during a high-speed chase, causing an accident that left the suspect a quadriplegic.

The Coweta County, Ga., sheriff's office asked the court to consider whether a law enforcement officer violates a fleeing suspect's constitutional rights by using deadly force to terminate a high-speed pursuit. The suspect's alleged crime was that the deputy had spotted him going nearly 20 miles per hour over the speed limit. The deputy initiated the bump to prevent an accident with innocent pedestrians, the sheriff's office said in asking the court to take the case. The bump resulted in the suspect's car leaving the roadway and crashing, rendering him a quadriplegic.

A federal court found the underlying crime of speeding meant the force used by the deputy was not in proportion to the risk posed. A federal appeals court found that the suspect's reckless driving did not provide probable cause to believe that he posed a substantial threat of imminent physical harm to other motorists and pedestrians.

The case is Scott v. Harris, 05-1631.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 12:32:03 PM EDT
[#1]

Quoted:
This could get very interesting. Many large angencies employee a manuver termed a PITT that falls under potentially lethal force.

I hope the Geogia attorneys arguing the case are competent.  


Supreme Court Hears Georgia Police Chase Case


The Associated Press

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear the case of a county sheriff's deputy who purposely bumped his car into another vehicle during a high-speed chase, causing an accident that left the suspect a quadriplegic.

The Coweta County, Ga., sheriff's office asked the court to consider whether a law enforcement officer violates a fleeing suspect's constitutional rights by using deadly force to terminate a high-speed pursuit. The suspect's alleged crime was that the deputy had spotted him going nearly 20 miles per hour over the speed limit. The deputy initiated the bump to prevent an accident with innocent pedestrians, the sheriff's office said in asking the court to take the case. The bump resulted in the suspect's car leaving the roadway and crashing, rendering him a quadriplegic.

A federal court found the underlying crime of speeding meant the force used by the deputy was not in proportion to the risk posed. A federal appeals court found that the suspect's reckless driving did not provide probable cause to believe that he posed a substantial threat of imminent physical harm to other motorists and pedestrians.

The case is Scott v. Harris, 05-1631.


Well, I would like some more information on the case. I'll see what I can turn up.

PITTing for just speeding ticket?

Were there any other charges?

AZ-K9, what can you tell us about PITTing and its current usage (such as what must occur prior to using it, etc...)?

It seems like an effective technique, but this case may be its undoing. Right or wrong. You never know w/ the SCOTUS.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 12:38:11 PM EDT
[#2]
If they do it to neutralize a threat to public safety I don't have a problem with it.


But then they should also consider whether attempting that maneuver will be more or less dangerous to bystanders than not attempting it.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 12:41:23 PM EDT
[#3]
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 12:43:26 PM EDT
[#4]


Why do people quote the entire OP in the first response?


This thread could be interesting.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 12:43:52 PM EDT
[#5]

Quoted:
If they do it to neutralize a threat to public safety I don't have a problem with it.


But then they should also consider whether attempting that maneuver will be more or less dangerous to bystanders than not attempting it.


Any fleeing vehicle (high speed) in an urban area is a extremely dangerous event that merits lethal force IMO.

Link Posted: 10/28/2006 12:49:09 PM EDT
[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they do it to neutralize a threat to public safety I don't have a problem with it.


But then they should also consider whether attempting that maneuver will be more or less dangerous to bystanders than not attempting it.


Any fleeing vehicle (high speed) in an urban area is a extremely dangerous event that merits lethal force IMO.




I agree…

In Germany that situation would have merited gunplay.

ANdy
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 1:24:13 PM EDT
[#7]
A fleeing vehicle is a lethal threat to every driver on the road.  Many many people are killed every year by criminals attempting to elude the Police.  In training, we were taught about the  "2000 Pound Ford Bullet" that is just as lethal as any firearm...  The court and the media meeds to put the blame on the criminal where it belongs and let the officers do their job and stop the fleeing suspect.  

Lethal force should be met with lethal force IMHO.  
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 1:41:19 PM EDT
[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they do it to neutralize a threat to public safety I don't have a problem with it.


But then they should also consider whether attempting that maneuver will be more or less dangerous to bystanders than not attempting it.


Any fleeing vehicle (high speed) in an urban area is a extremely dangerous event that merits lethal force IMO.


+100

  a few thousand pounds of metal traveling at high speeds in a high population area , and thats not dangerious? you have got to be kidding
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 1:45:56 PM EDT
[#9]

Quoted:
A fleeing vehicle is a lethal threat to every driver on the road.  Many many people are killed every year by criminals attempting to elude the Police.  In training, we were taught about the  "2000 Pound Ford Bullet" that is just as lethal as any firearm...  The court and the media meeds to put the blame on the criminal where it belongs and let the officers do their job and stop the fleeing suspect.  

Lethal force should be met with lethal force IMHO.  



+1

I also vote for summary roadside executions if the chase exceeds 15 miles over the speed limit for more than 1 mile.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 1:56:59 PM EDT
[#10]
I hate no knock warrants, I hate random vehicle searches by police, I hate forfeiture laws. I hate it when cops dress up like ninjas. There’s a lot of stuff that’s becoming real common in law enforcement that I just don’t think belongs in a free republic.

But there just ain’t no excuse for running from the cops at high speed. If someone tries it they deserve what they get. Hell, if it was up to me the police would be required to break one bone or knock out one tooth (minimum) for every mile of the high speed pursuit.

If someone’s just and doesn’t want to stop right then I understand. They should just slow down to the speed limit and drive around until they are ready to pull over. No lives are risked that way. I’m sure it’s damned annoying for the cops but then no one ever said their job was easy.

When someone goes running at high speed, endangering everyone’s life…. Then shoot at them, run them off the road, tie them up by their feet, and beat them like a pinata for all I care. They’ve got it coming.

In other words… The police should be free to use whatever means necessary to stop a high speed chase. And the guy who thinks he’s in an episode of the Dukes of Hazard shouldn’t have any legal recourse for whatever happens to him as a result.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 2:01:34 PM EDT
[#11]
There is definately not enough information in the intial article.  Was the car just going 20 mph and didn't stop right away or was the initial charge 20mph and when the officer got behind him he took off even faster weaving in and out of traffic making it known that he wasn't going to stop and that he was putting a lot of innocent people in danger at the time.

I've been pulled over for going to 32mph over the speed limit.  I would hate to see PITT used against me just because I didn't notice the cop car right away.

One of the police shows I was described the PITT and said that it is only used in low speed situations, 35mph or slower, due to the high risk and uncontrolled situation at high speeds.  Apparently this is the result of now following that standard.  So an additional question is, is PITT justifiable at high speeds now knowing it can result in the loss of life.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 2:14:05 PM EDT
[#12]

If they do it to neutralize a threat to public safety I don't have a problem with it.


  I guess if twenty over the speedlimit is that dangerous, the cops should open up on the traffic on major interstates with a .50 cal "to keep us safe".
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 2:22:06 PM EDT
[#13]

Quoted:

If they do it to neutralize a threat to public safety I don't have a problem with it.


  I guess if twenty over the speedlimit is that dangerous, the cops should open up on the traffic on major interstates with a .50 cal "to keep us safe".


Was this guy driving on an interstate highway?
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 2:27:21 PM EDT
[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A fleeing vehicle is a lethal threat to every driver on the road.  Many many people are killed every year by criminals attempting to elude the Police.  In training, we were taught about the  "2000 Pound Ford Bullet" that is just as lethal as any firearm...  The court and the media meeds to put the blame on the criminal where it belongs and let the officers do their job and stop the fleeing suspect.  

Lethal force should be met with lethal force IMHO.  



+1

I also vote for summary roadside executions if the chase exceeds 15 miles over the speed limit for more than 1 mile.


Due respect, that's not the smartest thing I've read on ARFCOM.

I hope you are joking. You MUST have been, right?
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 2:27:47 PM EDT
[#15]
If the initial offense was a minor one,   the pursuit should be terminated once positive identification is established (vehicle tag matches vehicle description is a good start) and then hand off the chase to an airborne unit or just call it off and pick up the suspect later when he's at home.


In the case of a major offense,  get the helicopter on the chase IMMEDIATELY and shadow the suspect's car.  


Chases are sometimes more a matter of ego than sense.    But there are times when the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect is justified.


Minimum effective force.   That should be the standard.


CJ
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 2:34:08 PM EDT
[#16]

Quoted:

If they do it to neutralize a threat to public safety I don't have a problem with it.


  I guess if twenty over the speedlimit is that dangerous, the cops should open up on the traffic on major interstates with a .50 cal "to keep us safe".


And here we have the guy who when his family is T-boned in an intersection by some asshole running from the POPO, will be the first to scream "The cops should have took that guy off the road before someone got hurt"...

We just can't please everyone. Damned if we do, damned if we dont.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 3:33:13 PM EDT
[#17]

Quoted:

If they do it to neutralize a threat to public safety I don't have a problem with it.


  I guess if twenty over the speedlimit is that dangerous, the cops should open up on the traffic on major interstates with a .50 cal "to keep us safe".


Its not the intial reason for the stop thats dangerous.  its the driving without due regaurd for the safety of anyone else on the road or the sidewalk after they start to evade.

My last pursuit was a woman i stopped for rolling through a red light. She initially pulled over but once i walked up to her car i noticed she was extremely intoxicated and she sped off. She only made it a couple miles down the road before crossing into opposing traffic and crashing head on into an innocent victim, sending two people to the hospital.

That's the type of things that the PIT and spike strips are intended to prevent. a controlled wipeout of the subject only in a safe location rather than an uncontrolled wipeout involving innocents.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 3:38:20 PM EDT
[#18]

Quoted:
If the initial offense was a minor one,   the pursuit should be terminated once positive identification is established (vehicle tag matches vehicle description is a good start) and then hand off the chase to an airborne unit or just call it off and pick up the suspect later when he's at home.


The only problem is you dont know the reason they are running.

Sometimes its just because they want to see if they can get away.  more often its because of some other issue known only to the suspect: Wanted, drunk, unreported stolen vehicle, just did a drive by or other major crime, stolen property in the car, ect.

So you terminate the pursuit because it was just for going 20MPH over then find out later the driver had actually just killed his exwife and stole her car and was on the way to snatch and grab their child from his daycare.

People rarely run without a significant reaon.

Link Posted: 10/28/2006 3:44:00 PM EDT
[#19]
Hopefully the supreme court upholds the lower courts rulings.  Going 20 miles an hour over the speed limit is not reason enough for the police to use deadly force on someone.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 3:45:51 PM EDT
[#20]
You don't have a police scanner, obviously.  


People do something STUPID and panic when they see a cop behind them with the lights on.   It's not uncommon.


You can't POSSIBLY know the full story behind every incident,  so are you suggesting that the use of all necessary force to stop a fleeing suspect is the right answer every time?


Yeah, right.  Some kid whose only crime was going 15 over the limit ends up being chased for 40 miles at over 100 MPH because he panics when he sees blue lights behind him....and the situation ends in a head-on collision and five people die.    

Fucking BRILLIANT solution.


Better idea....ID him, back off, and let the helicopter shadow him.   When he stops,   move in and give him the ticket and run him through the search system.   If nothing comes up,  that's fine.    If it does, handle it.


There's no perfect solution.  That's why we have JUDGEMENT CALLS.


CJ



Link Posted: 10/28/2006 3:50:15 PM EDT
[#21]
Tagg since I just had this in class today
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 4:13:10 PM EDT
[#22]

Quoted:
If they do it to neutralize a threat to public safety I don't have a problem with it.


But then they should also consider whether attempting that maneuver will be more or less dangerous to bystanders than not attempting it.



Agreed
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 4:15:55 PM EDT
[#23]
If a driver is an undue threat to the public at large and is fleeing the police, the POPO ought to be able to use TOW missles if they have them.  
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 4:19:15 PM EDT
[#24]
Hindsight is 20/20.

If somebody runs from the police simply because of a speeding ticket, then the police have an obligation to chase the guy.  They're not chasing him for the stupid ticket, they're chasing him to find out why the fuck he's running from a simple speeding ticket.  I'd guess that most of the people that run do it for a reason.

That said, I took off from the police when I was young and stupid for no real good reason.  It's not difficult to outrun the police, but it's very difficult to outrun the motorola.



Link Posted: 10/28/2006 8:09:09 PM EDT
[#25]

Quoted:
Hindsight is 20/20.

If somebody runs from the police simply because of a speeding ticket, then the police have an obligation to chase the guy.  They're not chasing him for the stupid ticket, they're chasing him to find out why the fuck he's running from a simple speeding ticket.  I'd guess that most of the people that run do it for a reason.


That plus evading is a continuing offense and often a felony.

So you might try to stop him for speeding (an infraction) but the minute he flees he is guilty of resisting ( a misdemeanor) and in my state once he commits three or more moving violations while fleeing it becomes felony evading.

Basically you have quit chasing him for speeding as soon as he flees because the crime has escalated and is continuing. Thern once he crashes or stops you find out why he is really running.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 8:11:04 PM EDT
[#26]

Quoted:
Some kid whose only crime was going 15 over the limit ends up being chased for 40 miles at over 100 MPH because he panics when he sees blue lights behind him....
then his only crime isnt speeding.

it's speeding, resisting arrest, reckless driving and evading. The speeding is a moot point once you run.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 8:46:29 PM EDT
[#27]

Quoted:
then his only crime isnt speeding.

it's speeding, resisting arrest, reckless driving and evading. The speeding is a moot point once you run.


So the Police should be able to use lethal force to stop speeders?

This is what it boils down to.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 8:54:37 PM EDT
[#28]
  PITT should NOT be considered lethal force


I'm aware of the collateral damage from high speed chases, but PLEASE - you wanna just let people GO?  



I probably come across as pretty anti-police, which I guess I am, mostly, sort-of, but I do NOT want to tie their hands on something like chasing a fleeing criminal!
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 10:10:15 PM EDT
[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
then his only crime isnt speeding.

it's speeding, resisting arrest, reckless driving and evading. The speeding is a moot point once you run.


So the Police should be able to use lethal force to stop speeders?

This is what it boils down to.

No, it's not.

Once someone make the decision to run in a vehilce, they've committed a felony offense and at the first stopsign or light immediately become a severe hazard to peds and other vehicles.

A person running stop signs, stoplight and otherwise ignoring the safety of the public is not a "speeder".

Link Posted: 10/28/2006 10:22:35 PM EDT
[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
then his only crime isnt speeding.

it's speeding, resisting arrest, reckless driving and evading. The speeding is a moot point once you run.


So the Police should be able to use lethal force to stop speeders?

This is what it boils down to.


If you call running from the cops just "speeding," you would probably have called the St. Velentines Day massacre in Chicago just, "going shooting."

As other here have clearly articulated - an automobile is a deadly weapon.  Start using it wrecklessly, and don't look to me for sympathy regarding how the threat YOU created gets neutralized.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 10:25:49 PM EDT
[#31]
Interesting to note a new change on the horizon in BP policy that applies to this thread.

Agents will now be authorized to "take any action neccessary" to stop vehicles carrying suspected UDAs, as the logic is that said UDAs could be terrorist UDAs.

The "take any action neccessary" as stated in the new policy specifically refers to PITTS, ramming, spike strips and other measures.



Sheep
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 7:07:24 AM EDT
[#32]

Quoted:
No, it's not.


Yes, it is.  The original infraction of this case was speeding.  The rest doesn't matter.


Quoted:
Once someone make the decision to run in a vehilce, they've committed a felony offense and at the first stopsign or light immediately become a severe hazard to peds and other vehicles.

A person running stop signs, stoplight and otherwise ignoring the safety of the public is not a "speeder".


The Police Officer escalated a minor traffic infraction to where he used lethal force.

The Police Officer is just as guilty, if not more guilty, of causing a severe hazard to peds and other vehicles.  He is also speeding, driving erratically, not focusing all of his attention on driving while radioing in etc, and is escalating the situation making the driver he is chasing become more erratic.

The Police Officer acted irresponsibly and negligently while performing his job.

Link Posted: 10/29/2006 7:19:22 AM EDT
[#33]

Quoted:
As other here have clearly articulated - an automobile is a deadly weapon.  Start using it wrecklessly, and don't look to me for sympathy regarding how the threat YOU created gets neutralized.


The Police Officer was speeding, the same as the person he was chasing.  

The Police Officer was driving recklessly, the same as the person he was chasing.

The Police Officer was causing a hazard to other vehicles and pedestrians, moreso then the person he was chasing as he chose to escalate the situation causing the person he was chasing and himself to go faster and drive more erratically.

The Police Officer actually did use his car as a deadly weapon, where the person he was chasing didn't, which caused harm and a much higher chance of other vehicles and pedestrians being harmed.

The speeder was in the wrong, but the Police Officer was also in the wrong and is guilty of everything he accuses the speeder of.

Link Posted: 10/29/2006 7:22:57 AM EDT
[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If the initial offense was a minor one,   the pursuit should be terminated once positive identification is established (vehicle tag matches vehicle description is a good start) and then hand off the chase to an airborne unit or just call it off and pick up the suspect later when he's at home.


The only problem is you dont know the reason they are running.

Sometimes its just because they want to see if they can get away.  more often its because of some other issue known only to the suspect: Wanted, drunk, unreported stolen vehicle, just did a drive by or other major crime, stolen property in the car, ect.

So you terminate the pursuit because it was just for going 20MPH over then find out later the driver had actually just killed his exwife and stole her car and was on the way to snatch and grab their child from his daycare.

People rarely run without a significant reaon.




I agree with everything but the very last sentence.  Although I don't have any statistics to back this up, I think most people that run do so for stupid, little reasons, like suspended license, or no insurance card, or simply "I was scared."  At least that's what I see most commonly on TV.


edited:  Most times I tend to come across as pretty anti-police in some ways... however, I do think they need the ability to catch the people they're chasing.  
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 7:23:44 AM EDT
[#35]
I frikkin HATE pursuits. Worst part of the job IMO. It's interesting to note that our policy went from a pretty standard pursuit policy to one just this short of "No way in hell" a couple of years back. Purely a political decision brought about because of pressure from a number of racial groups.

It increased the number of crashes involving innocents because word go around and now EVERYBODY runs.  OUr suspect-involved crashes have more than doubled.

But hey, the city lawyers are happy.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 7:28:13 AM EDT
[#36]
Make fleeing from the police an automatic one year jail time. Nothing less.

Link Posted: 10/29/2006 7:31:14 AM EDT
[#37]

Quoted:
  PITT should NOT be considered lethal force


PITT should be considered lethal force.  If you, a private citizen, rammed another vehicle with the intent of causing an accident, you would be charged with something like assault with a deadly weapon  or attempted murder, or some such other crime where the vehicle is viewed as a deadly/lethal weapon.

The Officer escalated the situation to a point where he used deadly/lethal force.


Quoted:
I'm aware of the collateral damage from high speed chases, but PLEASE - you wanna just let people GO?  


Who said anything about letting people go?  Get the license number and back off.  Defuse the situation and show up at the persons house with a ticket book.  There is a reason why many Police agencies have a no chase policy.


Quoted:
I probably come across as pretty anti-police, which I guess I am, mostly, sort-of, but I do NOT want to tie their hands on something like chasing a fleeing criminal!


This case isn't about chasing a fleeing criminal like a murderer or terrorist with a nuclear bomb.  It's about chasing a speeder and escalating the situation to a point where lethal force was used.  
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 7:34:41 AM EDT
[#38]
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 7:37:02 AM EDT
[#39]
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 7:37:08 AM EDT
[#40]
There has to be some better balance.  Like Jbombelli said, many people run for many stupid reasons.  Two wrongs don't make a right; escalating the situation poses a FAR greater risk to the public then letting them go...  But running off shouldn't always be a free pass either.

Helicopters are too cost-prohibitive to use for every evader.  Running the plates won't always work, what if the vehicle is stolen.

I don't agree making a blanket policy that the speeder cannot sue.  That just gives gooberment a free pass for abuses.  For example, a speeder may run for psychological  reasons beyond their control (paranoia, prescription meds) - let the courts decide each case.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 7:51:22 AM EDT
[#41]
Just an FYI for everyone who says "Get the tag and let them go".  It does not work that way.  If you let them run, that car will be reported "stolen" in about 20 minutes and no DA in the world will take the case to charge the owner.  Not to mention, unless you have camera footage of the suspects face, you won't be able to prove who was actually driving and therefore will not be able to charge anyone.  

Allowing criminals to escape simply by pushing the pedal on the right is just plain wrong...  You are allowing criminals who endanger everyone on the road to selfishly risk the lives of other drivers because of their own stupidity and or desire to get away.  

What people fail to see is that the Susupect drives the use of force chain, not the LEO.  As soon as he stops resisting, the force stops...  The suspect is the one that starts the chase and he is the one that should pay the price, not the general public or the LEOs.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 8:23:04 AM EDT
[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
then his only crime isnt speeding.

it's speeding, resisting arrest, reckless driving and evading. The speeding is a moot point once you run.


So the Police should be able to use lethal force to stop speeders?

This is what it boils down to.


Absolutely not.  Afterall, they don't have to.  If all the person did was speed, then that means they pulled over right?
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 8:41:11 AM EDT
[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As other here have clearly articulated - an automobile is a deadly weapon.  Start using it wrecklessly, and don't look to me for sympathy regarding how the threat YOU created gets neutralized.


The Police Officer was speeding, the same as the person he was chasing.  

The Police Officer was driving recklessly, the same as the person he was chasing.

The Police Officer was causing a hazard to other vehicles and pedestrians, moreso then the person he was chasing as he chose to escalate the situation causing the person he was chasing and himself to go faster and drive more erratically.

The Police Officer actually did use his car as a deadly weapon, where the person he was chasing didn't, which caused harm and a much higher chance of other vehicles and pedestrians being harmed.

The speeder was in the wrong, but the Police Officer was also in the wrong and is guilty of everything he accuses the speeder of.



Well, it's clear you and I are not discussing this from the same planet or plane of reality.

Link Posted: 10/29/2006 8:47:27 AM EDT
[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they do it to neutralize a threat to public safety I don't have a problem with it.


But then they should also consider whether attempting that maneuver will be more or less dangerous to bystanders than not attempting it.


Any fleeing vehicle (high speed) in an urban area is a extremely dangerous event that merits lethal force IMO.


+100

  a few thousand pounds of metal traveling at high speeds in a high population area , and thats not dangerious? you have got to be kidding


so if someone is driving fast because they are late for work they should be killed ?

...of course not..
you just think that since they are trying to avoid a ticket, that killing them is justified.

I am constantly amazed...
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 8:49:30 AM EDT
[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If they do it to neutralize a threat to public safety I don't have a problem with it.


  I guess if twenty over the speedlimit is that dangerous, the cops should open up on the traffic on major interstates with a .50 cal "to keep us safe".


And here we have the guy who when his family is T-boned in an intersection by some asshole running from the POPO, will be the first to scream "The cops should have took that guy off the road before someone got hurt"...

We just can't please everyone. Damned if we do, damned if we dont.




Not only is this hypothetical, but you are putting words in his mouth...
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 8:50:51 AM EDT
[#46]

Quoted:
Hopefully the supreme court upholds the lower courts rulings.  Going 20 miles an hour over the speed limit is not reason enough for the police to use deadly force on someone.


+1

nice to know that sane and reasonable people can be found on this site!
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 8:50:55 AM EDT
[#47]
This is easy.  If you run, then you are guilty.  Let Congress pass a law that if you don't obey flashing lights, sirens etc, then the results are on you.  People don't stop for da-poleece for one reason, because they are GUILTY of something.  I am all for chase 'em till they stop or  crash.  Pass a law that makes the unyeilding driver responsible for his failure to stop and removes liability from the P.D./municipality.  I told you it was easy!  

Common sense is a great thing, too bad it is long gone.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 8:57:53 AM EDT
[#48]
High speed chases injure innocent folks.

Therefore, we have two choices:
1.  Cops should not be allowed to engage in high speed chses for traffic offenses
2.  Cops should be allowed to stop the chase with lethal force.


I don't care which one is chosen, but innocent people should not be injured by anyone in a high speed chase.

I vote for both one and two.  If the guy runs, a limited pursuit with a quick termination.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 8:58:37 AM EDT
[#49]
Some information and some reflections.

A study (that I cannot quote) examined high speed pursuits.  The only common thread was that the fleeing people had poor impulse control.  This could mean that the boy and girl who stole the lawnmower and put it in the back of the pickup truck (and were later flattened when they deliberately ran a red light and were flattened by a crossing truck) couldn't, wouldn't calculate risks.  This means that the fleeing person isn't inevitably a fleeing bank robber.

Most departments do have a high speed pursuit policy that is in accordance with whatever the current state law might be.

There is always going to be a risk of lack of control or lack of judgment on the part of the fleeing person or the pursuing officer.  Passing new rules, regulations, court cases aren't going to change the reality.  If you live long enough, you will observe the same stupid behavior from your fellow humans, over and over again.  Get over it and think about more productive things.
Link Posted: 10/29/2006 8:58:50 AM EDT
[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
A fleeing vehicle is a lethal threat to every driver on the road.  Many many people are killed every year by criminals attempting to elude the Police.  In training, we were taught about the  "2000 Pound Ford Bullet" that is just as lethal as any firearm...  The court and the media meeds to put the blame on the criminal where it belongs and let the officers do their job and stop the fleeing suspect.  

Lethal force should be met with lethal force IMHO.  



+1

I also vote for summary roadside executions if the chase exceeds 15 miles over the speed limit for more than 1 mile.


Due respect, that's not the smartest thing I've read on ARFCOM.

I hope you are joking. You MUST have been, right?



Not really.  I'm flexible on the terms but my sentiment is the same.  Especially if the chase ends in a crash harming innocents.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top