[DB]

If anyone has seen the video of this incident, I'd say police were justified in using whatever force required to stop him including shooting him. He was doing a whole lot more than speeding... I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

[jwparkerjr]

It's my humble opinion that we, as a country, are in deep doo-doo when the nation's highest court is issuing opinions and rules affecting how a sheriff's deputy in Georgia attempts to stop and/or arrest a law breaker in a local jurisdiction.

[TomGuy]

So, are the justices going to take up doing the car chases, so they can ensure the chases are done to their specifications?

[The last thing LEOs need is "back seat directions" from judges.]

[chatham]

I really think the court has overstepped the boundries of the U.S. Constitution.

It is well defined what the feds have jurisdiction over and the rest belongs to the states.

I would gi ve you 2 cents for the Supreme court .

[untrained skeptic]

The idiot kid was fleeing from the police and endangering others.

He is at fault for the consequences of his actions, not the police officer that he forced into using such measures to apprehend him.

[untrained skeptic]

Harris was paralyzed and was never prosecuted.

He obviously committed multiple felonies in his flight from police. Why was he not prosecuted?

Yes, he sustained horrible injuries due to his actions.

He should still be prosecuted.

[Freedom4US]

The headline really ought to be "Court to allow criminals to flee unhampered."

[zendari]

He filed a lawsuit against Scott, alleging violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment's guarantees against unreasonable seizures and excessive force.

Too bad the 4th amendment makes no mention of excessive force, and the thug here doesn't own the highways.

[capt. norm]

There are already too many cases where pursuit is underway and the cops are told by their supervisors to back off and let the perp go. If you have a "trunking" scanner, you can hear this happen on a regular basis.

Once the bad guys all discover that they can run away and the cops will break off the chase, it just encourages them to do it more often.

[NorthFlaRebel]

Good grief, you have to read through more than half the article to understand that the SCOTUS is not taking a look at pursuit guidelines of police officers. The court is hearing an appeal by the officer who the lower courts say can be sued.

No matter what SCOTUS rules, this will have virtually no affect upon pursuit procedures. This is whether the cop can be held liable, not whether they can pursue for minor traffic violations.

[AZRepublican]

Only problem with this is supreme court has no say in the matter.

[RobRoy]

>>
Savrin added: "Scott personally observed Harris driving recklessly and dangerously at extremely high speeds, through red lights and on the wrong side of the road.<<

And why wast that? Maybe because he was being chased? Hmmmmmmm?!!! (as rush would say)

I've outran the cops twice in my life. My motto is this: lose 'em in the first ten seconds or pull over.

Regardless, this will be a moot point in a decade. The police will simply remotely shut down your ignition system. It will probably actually be less than ten years, but in ten years most cars on the road will be susceptible.

[BuffaloJack]

I thought traffic offenses fell to the individual states for jurisdiction, not the feds. The supreme court needs to concentrate on their own business and not the business of the states.

[jwin]

By whar authority