Supreme Court to decide on Use of Deadly Force in Police Pursuits

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

Deadly force is deadly force. By that logic, a cop would have been justified in driving up alonside him and shooting him in the head. For speeding and not stopping when ordered.

They're police officers in the United States of America. They're not the Gestapo or the Taliban. Think about the implications of what you're saying.

No. Not for simply speeding and not stopping as ordered. The cop knocked him off the road for wreckless, oops I mean reckless, driving. It is *not* the case that the cop saw a speeder and simply slammed him off the road.

It *is* the case that the kid "did pass some vehicles on a double yellow line" and "he ran a red light". This is from the Brief for Respondent Victor Harris (the kid).

The brief also states "a PIT maneuver cannot be used at speeds of 80-100 mph" Why state this? He's obviously admitting that he was going 80-100 mph when he was hit. No?

Amazingly, it also says "it is judicially admitted that Scott’s ramming of Harris’ vehicle occurred at a time where there were no other motorists in the area." It's as if to say, "You knocked my client's car off the road when there wasn't anybody else around to harm by doing so. You bastard!"

Now, from Brief for Respondent Victor Harris (the cop), another cop tried to pull the kid over but instead he "speed away. He passed motorists by crossing over double yellow traffic control lines and raced through a red traffic light." That's once (and also admitted by the Harris brief).

Then the cop joined the pursuit and "estimated the speeds to be in excess of 100 miles per hour on a narrow two-lane road. ... Harris cannot dispute these speeds." Not that hard to believe.

Then there's the collision (or "minor contact") in the parking lot. A normal cautiously driving person does not hit a police car and speed off.

Then the kid "once again raced down a two-lane road at high speeds, crossing double yellow control lines and running a red light." That's twice. (Admitted by the Harris brief but it conveniently didn't say how often)

Then, kid was heading for "a red light or a vehicle ahead" (a third?) and the cop took him out. (No mention in the Harris brief about what was upcoming).

Use deadly force after ALL of that (and before third time's the charm)? Yes.

Should this cop have even gotten involved in the chase in the first place? Possibly not. But, I didn't attempt to answer that. The question was "What do you guy's think ahould be appropriate for use of deadly force?". And my answer is, after someone drives like this, use of deadly force is appropriate.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[warpedskydiver 0]

What do you make of a cop on parked on the side of the road and 1 to 20 or so motorcycles go past at well over 150mph?


If you are the cop

Give chase?

Ram them?

Shoot them from a distance?

Go back to what you are doing?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

cases like this indicate how valuable police helicopters can be.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Yeah because they can see underground or fly through tunnels.

BTW a helo would have to be fast enough, and be in the area at the time.

Most helos are not fast enough to do this.

That is unless the cops have a UH-60 or similar, and even then they need to be right there.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I didn't say perfect, I said valuable.

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

What do you make of a cop on parked on the side of the road and 1 to 20 or so motorcycles go past at well over 150mph?


If you are the cop

Give chase?

Ram them?

Shoot them from a distance?

Go back to what you are doing?

Assuming you're not talking about someplace like the Autobahn but rather a highway with a typical speed limit of 55-75, then you don't just sit there and do nothing. Pull out, put the lights on, and attempt to pull them over. If they all pull over, then great. If not, you have to work the situation from there. If you can’t stop them any other way, then, at some point, the decision may have to be made to use deadly force.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[warpedskydiver 0]

The death penalty for speeding is a good law.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

In the Scott/Harris case, I side with the cop and say that this was an appropriate use of deadly force. The kid was driving wrecklessly and the cop should be given the authority to take him out.

Deadly force is deadly force. By that logic, a cop would have been justified in driving up alonside him and shooting him in the head. For speeding and not stopping when ordered.

Umm, the guy didn't die. Hardly deadly force. If he had been wearing his seat belt, a minimal safety step for being a dumbass, would have come out of it ok.

Trying to stop the car isn't the same as shooting a person in the head. That will nearly always be fatal to a driver. Just a wee bit of hyperbole on your part.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Umm, the guy didn't die. Hardly deadly force.

Drawing and shooting your weapon is considered using deadly force regardless of whether the suspect dies or not. Whether or not the person dies is not the determaning factor as to wether something is deadly force or not.

[HeadCone 0]

Quote

The death penalty for speeding is a good law.

I didn't advocate that.

--Head

--
Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety!

http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Umm, the guy didn't die. Hardly deadly force.

Drawing and shooting your weapon is considered using deadly force regardless of whether the suspect dies or not. Whether or not the person dies is not the determaning factor as to wether something is deadly force or not.

right, it's the relatively likelihood that the action will result in death. Police do these sort of brushing maneuvers to stop moving cars all the time. The great majority of the time the car stops. If death and paralysis was the usual result, it would be stopped.

The only real defense for the kid's actions was that he paid a higher price than he should have. And as I said, better him than anyone else. He made his bed.

[lawrocket 3]

See this here is the problem, as I see it:
1) The use of deadly force should not be authorized when there is no imminent threat to people's safety.
2) Your average speeder does not pose an imminent threat to people's safety.
3) The usual thing to do with a speeder is catch up with the speeder and pull the speeder over.
4) What do you do if the speeder flees? One side of this case is arguing "let him/her go, because it is not worth the danger." This may have the practical effect of encouraging speeders to flee to get away from a cop because the cop will not chase. Which seems to me to present a danger to the public worthy of intervention.

The other side says, "Chase him." By now, the guy's vehicle operation has probably risen to reckless, which would seem to indicate a risk to the public and authorizes deadly force.

The more I think about Andy's analogy, the more troubled I am. After all, if the cop's car is deadly force like a gun, then the suspect's car is deadly force, like a gun. If using a cop's car to ram a suspect's car is like using a gun, then it seems that the suspect's should be treated as waiving a gun.

But I dunno. Both sides have damned good points.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Jerry, taking that to its logical extension, every speeding car constitutes deadly force, to be reckoned with via deadly counter-force. Do you really want to skid down that slippery slope?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But I dunno. Both sides have damned good points.

yep - there's no obvious choice when trying to determine policy. The suspect was a minor threat to public safety up until the squad car lit him up. Most people are speeding.

But for good reasons, we don't allow cops to record the license plate and then mail a ticket. If it becomes known that cops won't pursue, I'd expect a certain element to flee every time they know there isn't heavy traffic ahead.

But for for this case, it's easy to determine that the suspect has only himself to blame. He made several choices to get to the result.

[moodyskydiver 0]

I believe that the police have the right to use the PIT maneuver to stop a fleeing individual even though it may be seen as deadly force.The main objective of most law enforcement is the preservation of human life.If a speeder isnt apprehended whos to say he wont t-bone some bystander down the road? Yes, caution should always be used with any police tactics,but having a suspect turn around and sue is BS IMHO.

Using the analogy of the previous poster,thats like saying "I'm going to sue the cop for waving a gun at me even though I was waving one around too." His actions were wrong and should be delt with accordingly,which I think the cop did.

flame away

"...just an earthbound misfit, I."

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

If a speeder isnt apprehended whos to say he wont t-bone some bystander down the road?

Ticket ALL of them? I guess you've never driven on the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sundevil777 102]

If there's been no decision in the lower court (summary judgement was denied), then how can one say that the SCOTUS will decide it. Even if the decision to not grant summary judgement will be appealed, how can it go directly to the SCOTUS?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[nathaniel 0]

I think of this problem in terms of game theory. The situation starts off with a minor loss for justice if the suspect flees and the cops don't use lethal force. If the cops use lethal force, then there's a chance that the suspect will be apprehended, but there's also a chance that the suspect will react rationally with equally dangerous tactics simply out of self-preservation.

I see it in analogy to having the death penalty for littering--anyone who thinks he's about to get arrested for littering will try to kill the cop and escape. It's a sufficient basis to establish the principle of proportionality, although surely not the only one.

Thus, the outcome of using lethal force is less desirable to society on average than not using lethal force. It's reckless and vain to pursue the kid just to spite him because he's breaking a law--it's disproportionate.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[sundevil777 102]

I think it likely that people that won't stop for a cop when they are caught speeding are trying to avoid much more than a speeding ticket. They are trying to avoid things like being busted for an existing arrest warrant on other charges.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[nathaniel 0]

I think it's likely that people who don't use their first names on this forum are hiding from existing warrants on other charges.

wtf does that have to do with anything

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I think it's likely that people who don't use their first names on this forum are hiding from existing warrants on other charges.

wtf does that have to do with anything

Sorry, it seemed obvious to me.

You discussed proportionality of the response. That implies a ratio of benefit to risk. I was pointing out that the benefit can include catching wanted criminals, etc. That changes the ratio of benefit to risk.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[nathaniel 0]

You can justify anything if you assume his guilt.

Let's make him an anti-gun, pro-welfare Muslim with a criminal record, outstanding warrants, and out to plant IEDs disguised as traffic survey equipment *. Who's against using lethal force now!

* edit: who just crossed the border illegally from Mexico

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[sundevil777 102]

I just asserted that a lot of people that flee from police for minor traffic violations are wanted for other crimes. If that is true, then the ratio of benefit to risk is altered. Then the evaluation of whether police should spin the car out of control is altered. No hypothetical involved.

Do you think that is true?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[nathaniel 0]

I think it's human nature to panic and flee, and not everybody can be expected to compensate with their superior human intellect. It is ultimately a principle of proportionality tho--how much warrant-issued-criminal-time do you take off the street with surprise chases vs how many lives lost or crippled? I think the weight of the loss would dominate the gain under most probabilities.

I do know that a skydiver from this area was killed in November in a very similar accident--no warrant or and no contraband was found on his person, his only crime was speeding (and running away / getting chased).

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[nathaniel 0]

The cost of a life is on the order of a few million dollars. What's the cost to society of a warrant-issued criminal not being caught for an additional day? I'd guess it can't be more than a few dollars.

What's the marginal contribution of random car chases to catching suspects with outstanding warrants?

What is the likelihood of catching a warrant issued suspect in a random chase, and the likelihood of killing someone? With these ranges, I suspect you'd have to have a ratio of hundreds of thousands or millions of criminals caught per life lost to make it worthwhile.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?