Author Topic: SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect (Read 1203 times)

Vudak · « **Reply #15 on:** April 30, 2007, 04:02:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Nice supposition there RPM, just don't figure that your opinion holds much water.

Holds water up in CT. In large part due to my friend who died (age 15) when a criminal involved in a high speed chase crossed the median and smacked into the car he was a passenger in at a closure speed of God knows what.

Nowadays, once it gets to a certain speed, the cops back off. And unless the guy's got a nuclear weapon or the president in his trunk, I think it's a pretty good idea.

Sting138 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 30, 2007, 04:02:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
What do you call a quadraplegic who ran from the cops, that lies at your door.

"Matt".

What do you call a QP who ran from the cops and is in your pool?

"BOB"

rpm · « **Reply #17 on:** April 30, 2007, 04:04:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Ripsnort obviously knows very little about Atlanta.

Fixed

Maverick · « **Reply #18 on:** April 30, 2007, 04:49:18 PM »

Let me be precise here RPM. This is the supposition I was referring to. Nice of you to form a definitive opinion and then proceed to postulate it as if it were fact. You've been in how many chases as an Officer?

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
pursuits are nothing more than a testosterone parade for the cops.

Helicopters are wonderful things. Provided the agency has one, provided it is available. Helicopters also do not stop vehicles nor does the presence of a helicopter and the cessation of active pursuit by ground units mean the idiot that is fleeing will cease their behavior. It's nice to see a court decision that puts the responsibility for the act back where it belongs, on the hemorrhoid who decided they have no obligation to stop.

midnight Target · « **Reply #19 on:** April 30, 2007, 05:16:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Not the political liberal-type liberal you twit! I meant "liberal" as in liberal with favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible. (Shakes head at Midnights knee-jerk and twitching reaction...)

Oh.. my bad.

Here I was thinking that you were posting a knee-jerk anti-lib jibe like usual when THIS time you meant something completely diferent. What was I thinking?

Twit?

Cougar68 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 30, 2007, 05:39:54 PM »

Quote

Other than braggin' rights at the Dunkin' Donuts, what purpose does it serve chasing a car over 50 miles at 100MPH+ over $20? [/B]

Because usually if someone is willing to risk their life to evade the police like that there is more at stake than $20 worth of gas. Simple broken light stops have turned up massive quantities of drugs and illegal arms as well as long time fugitives.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #21 on:** April 30, 2007, 06:02:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh.. my bad.

Here I was thinking that you were posting a knee-jerk anti-lib jibe like usual when THIS time you meant something completely diferent. What was I thinking?

Twit?

My apologies, MR. liberal twit!

rpm · « **Reply #22 on:** April 30, 2007, 06:16:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Let me be precise here RPM. This is the supposition I was referring to. Nice of you to form a definitive opinion and then proceed to postulate it as if it were fact. You've been in how many chases as an Officer?

Helicopters are wonderful things. Provided the agency has one, provided it is available. Helicopters also do not stop vehicles nor does the presence of a helicopter and the cessation of active pursuit by ground units mean the idiot that is fleeing will cease their behavior. It's nice to see a court decision that puts the responsibility for the act back where it belongs, on the hemorrhoid who decide they have no obligation to stop.

Well at least we agree...

Quote

Originally posted by RPM
If you have access to a helicopter, pursuits are nothing more than a testosterone parade for the cops.

How many pursuits as an officer... none

How many Pursuits as a suspect... 1 (got away, too)

How many pursuits witnessed on video... hundreds

Mav you aren't going to tell me that it is not an adrenaline rush to be part of a pursuit and adrenaline does not cloud judgement are you? I believe there have been several studies that came to that conclusion. That's what is behind the re-evaluation of pursuit policies around the country.

If it's a minor violation the pursuit thru heavy traffic or a residential area may create a greater public safety hazard than the violation itself. If air is available it is a much safer way to track the suspects while possibly defusing the situation and the public safety hazard. That's the purpose of police, to protect public safety, correct? Like the surgeon's code "first, do no harm". Killing an innocent bystander over a misdemeaner violation just isn't in the interest of justice or public safety.

Now if the guy has just killed 3 people in an armed robbery or raped an old lady and beat her, it is a much greater violation than driving off without paying for $20 of gas or running a stop sign. In that situation, a pursuit would be justified. It's not a totally one way or the other thing.

Once you have the tag, you have the owner and can easily find them. Or just mail them a ticket and suspend their license. You can run, but in today's society you can't hide for very long. As I stated previously, I have no problem with the SC ruling.

LTARokit · « **Reply #23 on:** April 30, 2007, 07:23:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm

How many pursuits as an officer... none

How many Pursuits as a suspect... 1 (got away, too)

How many pursuits witnessed on video... hundreds

Answer #1...."NONE" (speaks for itself).

Answer #2....Shows pride in initiating Pursuit, endangering others, self.

Answer #3....Expert with TV remote control.

rpm · « **Reply #24 on:** April 30, 2007, 08:08:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by LTARokit
Answer #2....Shows pride in initiating Pursuit, endangering others, self.

Shows superior driving skills and the quality of Ford engines.
Also shows the ignorance of youth. BTW, when we lost the Trooper we slowed to the speed limit. Hmmm....

Shamus · « **Reply #25 on:** April 30, 2007, 09:56:47 PM »

Back in my young and dumb days the deputy's used to chase me all over the back roads and corn fields when I was on my non-legal dirt bike.

Now if I got hurt during that, I wouldn't expect to have any recourse, but if an innocent third party got smacked by the cruiser and there was negligence on the part of the deputy, I would expect the injured party to be able to collect from the county.

I hope the sc ruling did not issue blanket immunity, I was too lazy to read all 28 pages.

shamus

LTARokit · « **Reply #26 on:** April 30, 2007, 10:38:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Shows superior driving skills and the quality of Ford engines.
Also shows the ignorance of youth. BTW, when we lost the Trooper we slowed to the speed limit. Hmmm....

RPM

No disrespect ment.............almost allowed myself to become hooked into this one, and break out the ole soap box

Comments held in check lol.

~~PS: Most police won't even go near a Donut Shop due to the stero typing (they eat em in a closet lolol).~~

sgt203 · « **Reply #27 on:** May 01, 2007, 04:51:05 AM »

Police are responsible for their actions not the actions of the other driver.
Im pretty sure the case that is controlling law in that respect is Sacramento vs Lewis a Supreme Court Case.

What is missing from the original post about a 100MPH pursuit is Time of Day, weather, Traffic Conditions, etc etc..

The fact that it went through 3 counties, numerous agencies is irrelevant in deciding the actions of the officers involved.

The fact that this was over $20.00 in gas IS however important in evaluating the decsion making process.

The type of crime involved is minor and I would say if this took place during heavy traffic times they should probably reevaluate the thinking on this one..

I do not think you can place a blanket statement that it is wrong simply because of the speed, number of agencies and elapsed time of pursuit.

And I agree that Police Agencies are aware of the physiological aspects of pursuits and have adjusted policies accordingly.

Normally I would tend to agree that probably most who run are running for other reasons than as in this case the $20.00 in gas they stole, but having said this Officers must evaluate each case individually and with the information they know at the time of the pursuit.

I would say that when the risks of the pursuit outweigh the need for immediate apprehension such pursuit should be terminated.

The life of the suspect is his sole responsibility and should he be injured or killed while fleeing the police it was solely a result of his poor choices, not the police who are responsible. However having said that Officers must remember their lives are more important than the $20.00 in gas that was stolen and so are the lives of others.

Edit... Mav is correct that having a helo does not stop the driver and they are great if you have one.. Unfortunately very few agencies actually have helo's or even access to one... Even with a helo you still need the ground units to follow at a close enough distance that they can be effective upon the driver stopping his vehicle... And I am 100% behind the S.C. on this one the intentional striking of a subjects vehicle is in and of itself no violation of the 4th amendment.. Its nice to see they got 1 right... excepting Old Man Dirt.... I would think he should move on with his lifes work but hes so old this is his lifes work.. Can we say mandatory Retirement Age!!

<<<>>

lazs2 · « **Reply #28 on:** May 01, 2007, 08:24:49 AM »

I want the police to chase the bad guy.. I don't know what the guy did but if he runs he might be ice pick willy.

But.... I want cops to be real cops... not a bunch of asians and women.. I want 6 ft tall guys who all know how to drive and I want em to like to drive fast. I want cops that know how to shoot and enjoy firearms and I want em to retire at 50 with 3% a year and if they get out of shape I want em to be fired or suspended till they get their act together.

Same for firemen except the shooting and driving part. I don't want to be in trouble and have a 5 ft 200 lb woman come to help.

lazs

Shuffler · « **Reply #29 on:** May 01, 2007, 09:02:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Actually Mav, it's not just my opinion. Many major cities have rethought their pursuit policies. Dallas is one that I know of. They did not stop pursuits, but they use judgement on whether to maintain pursuit or turn it over to aircraft depending on the violation, traffic conditions, ect.

It's a smart rule. Using the same situation I outlined in my previous post why couldn't a mailed ticket have served justice? They mail tickets for running traffic lights and speeding using nothing more than your tag number. Once the officers had the tag, why maintain a 100MPH+ pursuit that put the public at risk over $20 worth of gas?

Other than braggin' rights at the Dunkin' Donuts, what purpose does it serve chasing a car over 50 miles at 100MPH+ over $20?

Obviously it was not your $20. The Cops are not respnsible for the chase.. the criminal is, if the low life did not run there would be no chase. Better yet, if he had not stolen anything there would be no chase. I say pursue them, shoot them, run over them, whatever it takes to stop the idiot.

Other people getting hurt in the chase is the fault of the criminal. Anyone taking a stance on protecting those criminals should be considered criminals too.