[Eyes Unclouded]

Harris, 19 at the time, was driving on a suspended license, when he refused to pull over for speeding. The police video shows him accelerating at speeds more than 100 mph, leading officers across two counties outside Atlanta. He can be seen crossing the double yellow line on the road to pass about three dozen cars.

At one point, Harris is shown pulling into a shopping center parking lot, with Scott, a Coweta County deputy, and two colleagues trying to block him. Harris then hits Scott's vehicle while fleeing. The officer radioes his supervisor, requesting permission to use potentially deadly force to stop Harris.

"Let me have him, my car's already tore up," Scott says on the tape.

[SevenofNine]

How about suing the suspect of the car chase that work for me I wonder was victim was on CELL PHONE HELLO

[SevenofNine]

How about suing the suspect of the car chase that work for me I wonder was victim was on CELL PHONE HELLO

[rawhide]

"Let me have him, my car's already tore up," Scott says on the tape.

Lol!

[stylecouncilor]

ping

[Red Badger]

...Georgia teenager Victor Harris, who was left a quadriplegic after a police vehicle rammed his car off the road in 2001.

Had he simply pulled over, he'd have gotten a ticket and would be walking around today, free as a bird............

[Larry Lucido]

“Your honor, if they weren’t chasing me, I wouldn’t have had to run!”

[Always Right]

The lone dissenter was Justice John Paul Stevens

While not a shock, I was expecting Ginsburg.

[Niteranger68]

The little gimp will now sue the manufacturers of the car he and the officer were driving.

[hophead]

Taxpayers should sue the teen for damages to the police car! He should not get his driving permit back until the bill is paid.

[Dr. Zzyzx]

Unless a officer knows that a guy just shot someone and now is running, I don’t think that a high-speed chase is worth the danger it poses to the community. Gas skips, bank robberies, etc. are a loss of property, and the killing of innocent bystanders just to catch a guy that stole a tank of gas or $50,000 is not worth it. My friends’ teenage daughters were run into the freeway barrow pit while an officer chased down a gas skip. If there are good reasons that I’m not seeing, I’d appreciate some illumination.

[HarmlessLovableFuzzball]

In addition to becoming a quadriplegic he should have also got 10 years of hard labor. That would teach the little punk to run from the cops.

[JamesP81]

Court: High-speed chase suspects can't sue police

It's amazing that there even needs to be a court case on this. If the police had used excessive force, maybe, but I think it's pretty obvious that this hooligan was gonna kill somebody if something didn't get done...

[zek157]

Common sense prevails.

[SuziQ]

"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."

So who was the goober holdout in this 8-1 vote who thought that the police should have been more polite to this idiot behind the wheel?

[TexasCajun]

Better the punk dead or injured than one of my family members or an innocent person or family at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I have sympathy for the kid.

[Dogrobber]

Opinion of the Court (pdf format).

Harris v. Scott

The video is also on the Supreme court site.

[zendari]

11th circuit judges:

Barkett: Clinton
Birch: Bush Sr.
Cox: Reagan

[Dogrobber]

Having read the opinion of the Court and seen the video I must comment on a one overall thing:

Justice Scalia rocks. Nobody has his direct approach to the law. He writes opinions for the public and not just lawyers. I especially love this tidbit from his opinion:

But wait, says respondent: Couldn’t the innocent public equally have been protected, and the tragic accident entirely avoided, if the police had simply ceased their pursuit? We think the police need not have taken that chance and hoped for the best. Whereas Scott’s action—ramming respondent off the road—was certain to eliminate the risk that respondent posed to the public, ceasing pursuit was not. First of all, there would have been no way to convey convincingly to respondent that the chase was off, and that he was free to go. Had respondent looked in his rearview mirror and seen the police cars deactivate their flashing lights and turn around, he would have had no idea whether they were truly letting him get away, or simply devising a new strategy for capture. Perhaps the police knew a shortcut he didn’t know, and would reappear down the road to intercept him; or perhaps they were setting up a roadblock in his path. Given such uncertainty, respondent might have been just as likely to respond by continuing to drive recklessly as by slowing down and wiping his brow.

Second, we are loath to lay down a rule requiring the police to allow fleeing suspects to get away whenever they drive so recklessly that they put other people’s lives in danger. It is obvious the perverse incentives such a rule would create: Every fleeing motorist would know that escape is within his grasp, if only he accelerates to 90 miles per hour, crosses the double-yellow line a few times,and runs a few red lights. The Constitution assuredly does not impose this invitation to impunity-earned-by recklessness. Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: 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 injuryor death.

The Italian Stallion Rocks!

[SunkenCiv]

Some intelligence from the SCOTUS.

And some contrast with the Dhimmicrats:

Codey ‘upset’ over focus on Corzine’s speed, seatbelt
Star-Ledger
Posted on 04/20/2007 7:54:49 PM EDT by Omega Man II
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1820964/posts