Posted on 04/30/2007 10:35:55 AM PDT by Eyes Unclouded
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday gave police officers significant protection from lawsuits by suspects who lead them on car chases.
The justices ruled 8-1 against Georgia teenager Victor Harris, who was left a quadriplegic after a police vehicle rammed his car off the road in 2001.
A police officer used "reasonable force" when ramming the teen's speeding car, the high court ruled. A videotape of the pursuit played a key role in the decision.
"The car chase that [Harris] initiated in this case posed substantial and immediate risk of serious physical injury to others," Justice Scalia wrote for the majority. "[Deputy Timothy] Scott's attempt to terminate the chase by forcing [Harris] off the road was reasonable."
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that Harris' lawsuit against the deputy could go forward. The justices overturned the lower court ruling, meaning the suit can be dismissed.
Eight of the nine justices said they had closely viewed the videotape of the six-minute nighttime chase. It was taken from the dashboard of Scott's car and from the vehicle of another deputy from a neighboring county.
Similar pursuits have been aired, sometimes live, on many cable and broadcast television stations, and entire programs have been built around such incidents, such as "World's Wildest Police Chases." Tape fascinates justices
The tape seemed to fascinate some of the justices. Scalia referred to the videotape repeatedly in his opinion, calling it a "wrinkle" that clearly swayed the bench.
Scalia wrote, "The videotape tells a different story."
He continued, "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 greater risk of serious injury."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Jimmy Carter proposed that idea, they are called “carterized” autos.
Nobody wants them.
Yep, that was it... cool...
Do you really think a quadriplegic is going to be doing a lot of driving?
It might indeed lead to more chases, but the chases would be awfully short. There is no reason to drive 100 miles an hour if no one is chasing you.
Besides that, beating someone to “a paste” doesn’t do anything to compensate innocent victims of a loss. As much as you want to talk tough about this, it’s not an answer. No one says, “Gee, a police car ran into me and now I’m crippled for life, but the policeman beat up the guy who led the high-speed chase, so I’m perfectly happy with how all this turned out. God Bless America!”
Moreover, as I noted before, with modern technology, like helicopters and sophisticated communications systems, I don’t think they would have the ability to “do as they please.” If anything, it would only delay punishment.
I do in general believe in restraint in these cases. But the perp had already shown he was willing to ram a police car to get away, and that makes him a dangerous person who must be caught.
I’m still waiting for portable EMP generators to kill the engines of modern cars.
Aw, crap. My detector must be broken; it's usually much more sensitive. Off to the shop with me.
And actually, it was pretty funny, too.
Last year, we had a repete gas stealer kill the stations owner.. by running over him getting away.. http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/050822/killed.shtml
Not oppossing evil acts only encourage futher evil acts.. Same way with not opposing terrorist acts (as Clinton proved). By not allowing the criminal the promise if swift justice, you get what ole Solomon knew over 2000 years ago..
* Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Eccl. 8:11
It is that simple.. Ignoring a "PETTY" gas skip killed later on..
See post 89... one of those so called low level offenses killed our local Texico owner.
And the current methods of “sophisticated communication and helicopters” work so well today that every case is solved, and every stolen car is recovered, so we don’t need chases. I’m so glad to hear it.
As I wrote before, your “chase free zones” would be the same sorta invitation that school “gun free zones” are.
You have no chance to escape make your time?
By that rationale, we should lock up everyone who commits any crime for life, because there might be a chance, someday down the road, that they will do something worse.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. And furthermore, the risk of injury to innocent person or property is simply too great from wild police chases. I’m just not interested in supporting that kind of policy.
The video is also on the Supreme court site.
Well I'm glad that we're no longer worried in compensating those who are injured as a side effect your deterrent system.
Now you have become irrational. It is currently not illegal to own a car, street legal or not, that can exceed the legal speed limit. Therefore you should go to jail only if you break the law. What you do on private land is your own business.
Do you think you have a right to break speed laws because you don't like them?
You don’t seem to get it. Its the perps’ fault. If he can’t pay, he can’t pay. And the cops and taxpayers have no obligation to do so. Its not their fault.
It would be nice if we could create terrifying consequences for high-speed flight, but that doesn’t seem to be polically feasible.
So the victim, like he has always been, is SOL. Doesn’t matter if it is a high-speed chase or a robbery. I’m not going to support taking one more option away from the cops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.