[Publius Valerius]

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...

So from time to time, I'll read an article in my local newspaper about a policeman who loses control of his patrol car during a high speed chase and hits a bystander or runs into a piece of property or whatnot.

What would you say to those people that are injured as a result of the police chase? I think the real question here was whether, as a policy matter, we want to encourage police chases for low-level offenses. Clearly, the Supreme Court found that we want to encourage police chases, but I'm not sure it is the best policy, especially given the technology that is available today.

[Little Ray]

I’d tell ‘em to sue the perp and his family for all they worth, right down to their organs and the fillings in their teeth.

[JamesP81]

I think the real question here was whether, as a policy matter, we want to encourage police chases for low-level offenses. Clearly, the Supreme Court found that we want to encourage police chases, but I'm not sure it is the best policy, especially given the technology that is available today.

There is much to what you say here, and I agree that it's not appropriate to chase someone at 100 mph in order to write him a speeding ticket.

[xjcsa]

Clearly, the Supreme Court found that we want to encourage police chases...

I'm not sure that's true; it seems to me that they found that it's the police department's decision whether to encourage them or not.

[LowOiL]

What would you say to those people that are injured as a result of the police chase? I think the real question here was whether, as a policy matter, we want to encourage police chases for low-level offenses. Clearly, the Supreme Court found that we want to encourage police chases, but I'm not sure it is the best policy, especially given the technology that is available today.

See post 89... one of those so called low level offenses killed our local Texico owner.

[ReignOfError]

What would you say to those people that are injured as a result of the police chase? I think the real question here was whether, as a policy matter, we want to encourage police chases for low-level offenses. Clearly, the Supreme Court found that we want to encourage police chases, but I'm not sure it is the best policy, especially given the technology that is available today.

No, the Supreme Court found that the "victim" did not have a legitimate cause of action to sue the police for injuries that resulted from his own criminal actions. This case did not involve injuries or property losses to a bystander.

The current SCOTUS is inclined to rule narrowly, though the reporting hasn't yet adapted to reflect that. For example, SCOTUS did not ban partial-birth abortion -- it merely ruled that it was not beyond the constitutional powers of Congress and the president to do so. Whether it's good policy is beyond their scope, as it should be. We elect people for that.

[KingofZion]

Police should never have to stop chasing a suspect who refuses to pull over. By definition, anyone who does not does a lawful order to stop is either insane or more likely has committed a crime. I don’t want either one driving thru my neighborhood.

This is one of the best law and order decisions to come down all year. One can only hope that the next case will eliminate frivilous lawsuits from injured bystanders against the police who engage in such chases to apprehend felons. Anyone who is injured should sue the criminal, not the LEO.