Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mickey1992 on April 30, 2007, 12:16:02 PM
-
Summary: Fleeing suspect (after failure to stop and striking police vehicle) gets bumped by pursuing police car and loses control, wrecking and ending up a quadreplegic. He sues officer that bumped him.
The US Supreme Court says NO SOUP FOR YOU. :aok
"A police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed 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," Scalia said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269265,00.html
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1631.pdf
-
thats such a no brainer makes me wonder how it even got to the SC.
:rolleyes:
-
HA HA
No arm, leg movements for you!!!1SQUAREROOTOFg
-
Pursuits are strange beasts. Sometimes you catch the guy, sometimes you put the public at more risk by persuing. If you have access to a helicopter, pursuits are nothing more than a testosterone parade for the cops.
Having said that, I don't see using the police car as a tool to stop a fleeing suspect as a bad idea. It's all a matter of when, where and why.
We just had a 100MPH+, 50 mile persuit here. They were after a car that drove off without paying for $20 worth of gas. 4 different agencies from 3 different counties took part. They finally used stopsticks and the suspects crashed into a ditch and walked away. They are still at large.
:huh
-
If it had been an illegal alien the SC would have awarded him millions, gave him a green card and a SS card... then thrown the cop in jail for 10+ years
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
thats such a no brainer makes me wonder how it even got to the SC.
:rolleyes:
Liberal judges in smaller courts.
-
I'm shocked .... when the law actually works we are surprised and it makes big headlines. This should be the norm, not the exception.
We have a person in San Antonio filing charges on Border Patrol agents doing their job. Yet noone has delved into his finances to see who is paying him off.
And to think... we used to shoot traitors.... now several are in office.
-
Nice supposition there RPM, just don't figure that your opinion holds much water.
-
Reminds me of when I lived in Corpus Christi and a 13 year old ran out of the mall after stealing some cd's. He ran across the freeway while being pursued by the rent a cops as well as CCPD who were already on site for another shoplifter. This happened at rush hour and he ended up getting mangled by a multitude of cars and his parents tried to sue the PD and Mall for damages. They didnt get squat except a large funeral bill!
DO THE CRIME DO THE TIME!!
-
What do you call a quadraplegic who ran from the cops, that lies at your door.
"Matt".
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Liberal judges in smaller courts.
11th circuit in Atlanta Ga. ... Buncha freakin hippies right?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
11th circuit in Atlanta Ga. ... Buncha freakin hippies right?
You obviously know very little about Atlanta.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Nice supposition there RPM, just don't figure that your opinion holds much water.
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?
-
I'm ready for Stevens to retire.
The court voted 8-1, Stevens dissenting.
Justice John Paul Stevens dissented.
Scalia described a ``Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury.''
During oral argument, justices repeatedly invoked the video to support how recklessly they believed Harris was driving.
Stevens, however, said that a district court judge and three appellate judges who watched the same video concluded otherwise. Those judges determined the issue should be decided after a trial, not by a judge in a pretrial ruling.
In the courtroom, Stevens said that was preferable to the case "being decided by a group of elderly appellate judges,'' a reference to himself and his colleagues on the court. At 87, Stevens is the oldest justice.
In his written dissent, however, Stevens suggested his colleagues were too young to appreciate the situation.
"Had they learned to drive when most high-speed driving took place on two-lane roads rather than on superhighways...they might well have reacted to the videotape more dispassionately,'' he said.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
11th circuit in Atlanta Ga. ... Buncha freakin hippies right?
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...)
-
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.
-
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"
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Ripsnort obviously knows very little about Atlanta.
Fixed
-
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?
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.
-
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?
:aok
-
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.
-
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?
:aok
My apologies, MR. liberal twit! :P ;)
-
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...
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.
-
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.
:noid
-
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....
-
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
-
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 :cool:
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).
-
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!!
<<<>>
-
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
-
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.
-
Say someone walking down the street was pointing a gun at people, maybe shooting at a few also, maybe even hitting a few, what would the cops do? I would like to think they would shoot to kill.
Why is it any less dangerous when a 'fleeing suspect' is speeding with a one ton weapon?
-
It appears number 1 and 2 have already been noted and responded to by others in the bbs here. I do want to state your response to #2 is rather juvenile. You based the pursuit ars the responsibility of the ford engine. Yep how true, it made you flee and commit what in many jurisdictions would be a felony. Tell me just what major problem were you fleeing from when you decided to run? How many people did you endanger by your choice?
As to pursuit policies. Yep they have changed in many locations. They did in my old jurisdiction as well even before I retired. Doing one for a purely traffic offense is not particularly smart. The only way you will ever know however that it was only over a traffic offense is if the fleeing felon is stopped. As long as all pursuits are stopped or never initiated you won't know what was in the car. It's a tough call at times. Announcing the no pursuit policy in Tucson caused an increase in the number of vehicles fleeing over petty items as the driver knew all he / she had to do was run and the pursuit would be terminated. It's a get out of ticket free situation for them. I found it to be especially so in the University and some High School areas. I had DUI's flee as well including one who was stopped then fled through a residential area at night after turning off his headlights. He ended up getting stopped some miles later but the prosecutor dropped the charges because the vehicle wasn't under constant surveillance and no one could prove that the driver when stopped was the driver when the car fled.
As for getting the "tag" is concerned there is something you should understand. First there is no way to determine if that plate belongs to the vehicle unless it is stopped. Secondly the entire vehicle may have been stolen or jacked. Third, the plate does not respond to a summons or indictment, neither does the car. That's because you must have the driver identified and then taken before a court. To date the vehicles and "tags" have refused to cooperate and identify who was actually operating the vehicle at the time. Their refusal to testify under oath makes it pretty silly to assume that having the tag means you have a prosecution of a driver for the offense in question.
Once the decision to terminate the pursuit is made and implemented there is still no guarantee the felon will reduce their own speed. Even in the cases of helo monitoring. If there is a collision by the felon the Police are still blamed because they allowed the felon to get away and create the collision. If it turns out that the felon is actually another pedophile (or insert the dangerous criminal of your choice here) they get blamed for allowing him to escape. Nice damned if you do and if you don't situation. That public safety thing all depends on how the public decides to view it and that is always after the fact in an armchair general situation. How IS the chair there general??
I'm not advocating pursuits for all situation. I have just pointed out that TV experience hardly covers the situation and that there are other things to consider.
Finally again as to your testosterone premise. There were many things that caused my adrenaline to rise in the job. Does that mean that I should not have performed those functions? Does that mean those functions were or are inherently bad for the public?
I also noted in your posts that you didn't bother to place any blame for the chase or consequences on the part of the person who fled. I wonder why that is. Fortunately the SC sees it differently.
Originally posted by rpm
Well at least we agree...
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.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
As for getting the "tag" is concerned there is something you should understand. First there is no way to determine if that plate belongs to the vehicle unless it is stopped. Secondly the entire vehicle may have been stolen or jacked. Third, the plate does not respond to a summons or indictment, neither does the car. That's because you must have the driver identified and then taken before a court. To date the vehicles and "tags" have refused to cooperate and identify who was actually operating the vehicle at the time. Their refusal to testify under oath makes it pretty silly to assume that having the tag means you have a prosecution of a driver for the offense in question.
This was pretty much what I was thinkin yesterday on the $20 worth of gas drive off. the car could have been stolen, or the plates stolen. And even if the car or the plates werent stolen, now you have to prove the owner of the car was the one that stole the gas.
-
in my city some years ago there was a high speed pursuit, the cop car hit a civilian car head on, people were killed, the city was sued for a very large amount of money, that was the end of high speed pursuits in that city.
just the facts mam.
-
Well stated Mav.......Salute Bro.
Fortunitly our pursuit policy wasn't AS restricked as many larger city agencies. However, ya dang skippy, you needed to use common sense and terminate chases when needed.
The $20 dollar drive off. Ya get behind em, vehicle matches up, can't yet see the plate, all descriptures match though, ya call it in......rolling location.......reach down turn your lights on........&............BOOM, driver nails it.............. Yea say "Just Call In The Plate & Be Done", DURING A HIGH SPEED PURSUIT!?!? Have you lost your mind, or what. Some or the thing to be concerned with during pursuit driving: Watching the vehicle being pursued by you, looking in front of vehcle, on coming traffic, side road traffic, rear traffic, watch for anything to be thrown out of suspect vehicle (drugs, weapons, etc.), making sure camera stays on target, all while holding microphone in right hand contiuosly updating and communicating with your dispatchers.................. ........................and you want me to break all that concentration and focus on some LITTLE rectangular square on the back of the vehicle...................
You see one of the things I don't like about the TV versions is that it shows............well that kind of says it all.............It's all SHOW. The officer is representing an agency that's being viewed by MILLIONS. What it doesn't show is.............using the above example............What's going through my mind:
(and this is what has run through my mind before).........Surely this driver isn't committing a Felony over a $20. bill. Aww hell what do I have?
So from calling in a simple misdemeanor theft stop, your now on the radio advising dispatch of pursuit in progress. It has now gone over the air, and responses are coming in, the channel gets cleared for your traffic only until the pursuit ends, or is terminated by me.
Bottom line though is ya just can't assume the chase is over a $20 bill, assumptions is what gets you killed when working the streets.
Bragging rights...............yea, maybe a day or 2 later, hell I'm human too. Right after the chase, no.......generally I was always too pizzed off at the driver for endangering Me, Others, and the him/her - self (in that order). Still stands, never at a DONUT SHOP (:mad: )
Ya know, one way to educate yourself in what REALLY goes on inside that patrol car is to sign up for a few nights as a Ride Along. Most agencies allow civilians to ride with an Officer for a shift, or even partial shift. Do a few nights and you get a clearer idea of what goes into the FULL picture.
-
Originally posted by LTARokit
Ya know, one way to educate yourself in what REALLY goes on inside that patrol car is to sign up for a few nights as a Ride Along. Most agencies allow civilians to ride with an Officer for a shift, or even partial shift. Do a few nights and you get a clearer idea of what goes into the FULL picture.
:rofl
Oh, man, next time I run into one of my buddies, I'll ask them how to do that. Nice knowing you fellas :D
-
Wait a sec, you mean it's perfectly reasonable to mail a ticket to a driver going 100+ MPH if he's just speeding or blew thru a red light, but if he took $20 in gas you have to pursue?
The speedcam and stoplightcam are all the rage now. You mean they are just a waste of tax money? You guys are acting like I don't want ANY pursuits at all. Nice way to twist my words and ignore what I have said.
Read this real slow and see if it sinks in...
When air cover is available, ground units can fall back and lower the risk to the public while the air unit follows the suspect. Does that make sense or are the aircraft just there to take snazzy FLIR pics of the ground units whizzing thru traffic for the next episode of America's Wildest Police Chases?
Use some common sense, that's all I'm saying.
Rokit and Mav, don't get me wrong. I respect the law and the officers that enforce it. Running from that cop was probaly one of the dumbest things I did as a kid. But it was not uncommon on a west texas highway back in the day.
-
Originally posted by rpm
But it was not uncommon on a west texas highway back in the day.
LOL RPM no harm bro.................regarding quote.............the big Texas is where I spent 20 years as LE. (not west though......there ain't nothin out there :confused: )
Trivia Question: Everyone seems at ease using the term "Cop", it's an abreviation, just like .....Conduct "Cap" over base...... What does COP stand for?
-
Citizens On Patrol.....
At least that was the name of one of those police academy movies:aok :rofl
-
Trivia Question: Everyone seems at ease using the term "Cop", it's an abreviation, just like .....Conduct "Cap" over base...... What does COP stand for?
Probably comes from the British slang 'copper' which raises the question where did word copper come from?
Where did the word 'fuzz' come from?
-
Originally posted by LTARokit
Trivia Question: Everyone seems at ease using the term "Cop", it's an abreviation, just like .....Conduct "Cap" over base...... What does COP stand for?
Constable On Patrol
-
Used to live in Tampa before I moved to a shack in the country , bought a buncha guns and canned goods....Stupid woman was elected mayor, and the first thing she did was to disallow ALL hi-speed pursuits (after 3-4 dumb-arse kids got themselves kilt--commie-lib Tribune of course blamed the cops)--after a couple years, the SAME stupid mayor had to rescind the rule, as EVERYone was by now running from the cops, as they knew they would turn off the bubble lights and retreat to Krispy Kreme
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Constable On Patrol
We have a winner :)