FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
How many drivers were there?
The good news?
No dogs involved...and ONLY 15 rounds were expended...
I wonder how they will rule and live when folks start shooting back.
driving a car in a high speed chase IS possession of a deadly weapon.
why was he on a high speed chase? The cops probably thought the young lady in passenger seat was a kidnap victim, that’s why he was running scared.
One could equally argue that firing a gun from a moving vehicle at another moving vehicle makes a dangerous situation even more dangerous. The police could easily have shot an innocent occupant of another vehicle.
I understand why many department have gone to discontinuing high speed chases in high traffic areas. The more cars involved in the chase, the greater the chance for innocent driver casualties.
I question shooting at a fleeing car only because so often the number of hits vs. the number of shots fired by officers is very low. This puts anyone near the scene in serious danger. If it’s actually true that both suspects were killed with only fifteen shots fired, it’s nothing short of amazing.
Wonder if the cop in New Mexico, who shot at a car with a woman and kids south of Taos, will get his job back?
Just curiuos...who were the people in the car? No mention in the article. Maybe there was a reason why they were fleeing the police.
won’t be long and all new cars will be required to have a remote kill law enforcement can use to end the chase before it starts.
Our unelected rulers turn against us.
I'm sorry... I can't tell from the article.
Exactly what was the Fourth Amendment issue in this case?
How does shooting at a fleeing car involve unreasonable search and seizure, or warrants naming the thing and place to be searched?
Were they arguing that the person had a right to be secure in their car, and that the pursuing police didn't have a right to stop them?
-PJ
Bad ruling. If they could shoot to kill they could have shot to disable the vehicle. The issue is the discretion used - the lack of.
Interesting that the article doesn’t mention who was prosecuting the officers.
Here is video of incident.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfGkVQz208
The incident in question began in July 2004, when police in West Memphis, Arkansas, questioned Donald Rickard at a gas station about a broken light on his white Honda.
Rickard refused to step out the car and then took off. With his girlfriend, Kelly Allen, in the passenger seat, Rickard crossed over the Mississippi River into Tennessee along Interstate 40.
After Rickard rammed a police car head-on and sideswiped another, police fired 15 shots into the vehicle, mounted cameras from police vehicles show. The car went airborne and slammed into a house in Memphis. Rickard and Allen, both 44, were killed.
The actual ruling:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1117_1bn5.pdf
5 minute chase, speeds over 100 mph, “and the record conclusively disproves that the chase was over when Rickard’s car came to a temporary standstill and officers began shooting. Under the circumstances when the shots were fired, all that a reasonable officer could have concluded from Rickard’s conduct was that he was intent on resuming his flight, which would again pose a threat to others on the road.”
Thank goodness. I feel so much safer.
Morons.
FWIW, I agree with Alito. The ‘unarmed’ passenger was in the weapon. Bad choice being in that weapon.