SHOULD POLICE AUTO CHASES BE CURTAILED?

Hi Advocate,

I'm not necessarily completely disagreeing with you on police pursuits, but rather saying that it is a complex subject, and I don't believe a blanket 'police should never pursue' is the answer.

In most things, I am for a balance of individual rights/expectations vs community rights/expectations. I don't think that a 'never pursue' policy meets that.

If you disagree, I have no problem with that. That's why we are a democratic society.

0 Replies

Vikorr, I guess there are some extreme situations in which an auto chase may be justified. But, on about a weekly basis, I read about innocent people being killed, maimed, or otherwise injured in these chases. Even the police are sometimes injured or killed. Chases occur in my area often based on very minor violations, or suspicions of minor violations. The human and property cost is huge.

0 Replies

There is a very important development in the issue of curtailing police auto chases. The top court in the USA will rule on whether the constitutional rights of a severely-injured speeder were violated. In a chase, the police bumped the rear of his car, leading to his crash and paralysis. More than 350 people died each year on average from 1994 to 2004 because of police chases.

Posted on Sun, Feb. 25, 2007email thisprint this
DRIVER WAS SPEEDING
Supreme Court to hear car chase case
Man who fled suing deputy who hit his car in high-speed pursuit
MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The police cruiser rammed the black Cadillac from behind as they raced along a wet, two-lane road near Atlanta at roughly 90 miles an hour. The Cadillac's 19-year-old driver lost control after the collision and ended up at the bottom of an embankment, paralyzed.

Victor Harris was being chased by police because he had been speeding. He said later he was too frightened to stop. Coweta County Sheriff's Deputy Timothy Scott said he wanted to end the chase before other drivers or pedestrians were hurt.

Harris sued Scott for violating his civil rights and the case has reached the Supreme Court, where it will be argued Monday. The deputy wants the justices to conclude that his actions, captured on the dashboard camera of his car, were reasonable and dismiss the lawsuit.

The issue confronting the justices is whether Scott's decision to ram the Cadillac violated Harris' Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure.

Even if the court decides Scott's action was unconstitutional, it still will have to decide whether it should have been clear to him at the time that ramming the car was unlawful.

A federal appeals court in Atlanta said the law was clear at the time of the incident in March 2001. "The use of deadly force is not `reasonable' in a high-speed chase based only on a speeding violation and traffic infractions where there was little, if any, threat to pedestrians or other motorists as the roads were mostly empty and Harris remained in control of his vehicle," the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.

Scott's lawyer, Philip Savrin of Atlanta, and the Bush administration said the deputy's decision should not be judged with the benefit of hindsight.

If the court upholds the appeals court ruling, the case would proceed to a trial. If Scott wins, Harris' suit will be dismissed.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, said the tragic consequences should not obscure that Harris demonstrated he was dangerous by driving recklessly and continuing to flee.

Craig Jones, Harris' Atlanta-based lawyer, said Harris had committed no serious crime and that officers could have ended the chase and tried to arrest Harris at his home at a later time.

Harris was never prosecuted. Scott left the Coweta sheriff's office for another law enforcement job in Georgia, Savrin said.

Debating Use of Deadly Force

The Scott v. Harris case puts the court in the middle of a national debate over high-speed chases. More than 350 people died each year on average from 1994 to 2004 because of police chases, a group of Georgia police chiefs said in court papers.

It also is the first in more than 20 years in which the court will consider constitutional limits on police use of deadly force to stop fleeing suspects. Courts define deadly force as creating a substantial risk of death or serious injury.

0 Replies

I'm surprised that this should be seen as an issue at all.

While I have a great deal of sympathy for innocent bystanders injured or killed in police pursuits, I have no sympathy at all for the drivers who run from police. Nothing can ever compete with the fact that they are responsible for their own actions, and those actions have consequences.

Once a person engages in behaviour that is of danger to others (and given this thread, I doubt anyone will argue that their behaviour is not a danger to other peoples lives), then it is quite appropriate that the officer end the danger asap.

The issue for this thread of course, is whether the pursuit should have occurred in the first place.

0 Replies

v, do you mean that it is okay to drive someone to their death or paralysis because he or she was guilty of a speeding violation, and then sped away? The article indicates that the police had identified the driver and could have arrested him later at his home. People sometimes exercise bad judgement, and should not be put to death or maimed because of it.

0 Replies

Hi Advocate

I don't see anywhere in that article where it said police identified the driver. If the driver was known to police then I would agree the pursuit was unjustified and should never have occurred, and there would be a certain case for a law suit.

As for 'chasing someone to their death' (which didn't happen) or paralysis - if someone is a danger to the public...in the case of pursuits they may be a danger to the publics life and safety which is the whole point of your many posts...the police responsibility is clearly to end the danger. That the method of ending the pursuit may result in injury unfortunate but irrelevant, as long as it is done with the minimum necessary force to end the danger (and as I said, the offender must always accept responsibility for their actions. In this case the offenders dangerous actions have resulted in a common (and usually one of the safest) police tactics (that I know of) to end their dangerous and offending behaviour, which in turn resulted in the offenders injury)

Strangely enough, police in Australia don't use the same nudge tactics to end pursuits as in the US (in Australia, they only follow, until the car stops or crashes, except in exceptional circumstances). The Australian method, to my way of thinking, is much more dangerous (Police pursuits are getting more and more restrictions over here).

0 Replies

The article included: "Craig Jones, Harris' Atlanta-based lawyer, said Harris had committed no serious crime and that officers could have ended the chase and tried to arrest Harris at his home at a later time." This is a clear indication that the police ID'd the chased.

You must know, I think, that chases cause death and injury of bystanders, and even the police, in addition to the chased.

0 Replies

Quote:

The article included: "Craig Jones, Harris' Atlanta-based lawyer, said Harris had committed no serious crime and that officers could have ended the chase and tried to arrest Harris at his home at a later time." This is a clear indication that the police ID'd the chased.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Remember that you are reading a newspaper/media, and many/most newspapers/media quote to make news, not to maintain accuracy. The newspaper has not said straight out that police ID'd the driver during the chase (and that would certainly be newsworthy, because such a thing would generate huge public interest/debate, which would sell more papers)...In context, the advocate may have said beforehand "They had his registration plate. They could run it and identify the driver. Therefore...((start newspaper quote))". This of course would be misleading, because the car could be stolen, but not yet reported. Or a 'friend' could have borrowed the car, or the car could be shared between brothers etc etc etc.

Newspapers and media frequently supply only part information to generate more emotion (because emotive issues sell more papers etc). I recall 'Police Brutallity" headlines where police in Australia used a long length of wood to disarm a man armed with a knife. No mention was made that the only other way to disarm the person was to shoot him, and in my opinion the officer who disarmed him with the wood was just crazy - the time it takes to run 3 metres (guess at the length of the wood) is less than a second, at which time length of wood would be innefective, and the officer attempting to disarm the offender would receive possibly fatal injuries (that is to say, I think it was both one of the bravest and stupidest things I've ever seen a police officer do...but it get 'police brutallity' headlines, with minimal information on reasoning). I recall hearing of a woman armed with a hammer, and who had assaulted people, running around a busy mall...it was all security camera taped...three police jumped on her and wrestled her to the ground, with her thrashing around. The police had prior to this, negotiated with her for half an hour. News showed only the few seconds of the struggle, with the media complaining of excessive force (though she received no substantial injuries). No mention was made of police attempting to solve the matter through other means.

Quote:

You must know, I think, that chases cause death and injury of bystanders, and even the police, in addition to the chased.

Of course. That is what this whole thread is about, is it not? (My post though, was in relation to the article you posted)

0 Replies

BTW, the paper was quoting the lawyer for the plaintiff. It is unlikely that the paper would misquote him as a reporter who purposely did this would be fired.

But the lawyer could well have been misleading in his statement. Lawyers do this, of course.

I see police chases as a terrible problem in this country, and they are increasingly being curtailed.

0 Replies

Quote:

BTW, the paper was quoting the lawyer for the plaintiff. It is unlikely that the paper would misquote him as a reporter who purposely did this would be fired.

You misunderstood what I said. I was not saying the paper misquoted him, I was saying the paper may have included only a part quote, and part quotes taken out of context can be be quite misleading (usually done so on purpose), even if the quote is accurate.

As I've said previously, I understand that you see police chases as a problem. To a certain extent I am in agreeance with you, but not to the extent that I believe they should be banned.

Of course, with enough money there are other ways to conduct police pursuits ...get a helicopter with the right technology and they should be able to track offenders where-ever they go (except into buildings and under bridges etc...but they should at the same time be guiding police vehicles to the vicinity), and you see similar things happening on those real life cop shows. This would eliminate the pursuit in most cases, but still give a good chance of catching the offender.

0 Replies

Assume that the chased is badly injured. This will load a large debt on the taxpayer in almost all cases. The person will not be able to work and will need medical and financial aid from the government.

0 Replies

Quote:

Assume that the chased is badly injured. This will load a large debt on the taxpayer in almost all cases. The person will not be able to work and will need medical and financial aid from the government.

You want to base an argument on an 'assumption/possibility'? What percentages are we talking about?

As your post is about cost...what is the cost in ongoing crime if you stop police chases...considering most everyone that runs from police do so because they are committing some sort of crime, and don't wish to be caught?

Let's for a moment apply the 'cost' vs % reasoning to the following :

It can cost millions for big investigations, so why investigate offenders?

You could then apply it to court cases...if you catch the offender (which often happens after a 'chase'), it can cost millions to send them to court (if a big case)...so why send them to court?

And then you could apply it to jails...it's costs $80,000 per year to keep them in jail (last I saw), so why jail them?

Actually the Justice system (Police, Courts, Jail system etc), probably costs the US taxpayer Billions of dollars, which is an unfair burden on the taxpayer, so why keep them?

0 Replies

But very often the injured and killed are innocent bystanders and motorists, and even the police. I think you can safely assume that the cost to the public is enormous.

0 Replies

Quote:

But very often the injured and killed are innocent bystanders and motorists, and even the police.

edit : within the stats of those injured, perhaps, though I rather doubt it. As it's often the offender who crashes, and I daresay it's rare (percentage wise) that a bystander is injured, it would seem to me that the most commonly injured is the offender himself. Police and bystanders of course, do sometimes get hurt/killed.

As for the cost reasoning, I would refer you back to my previous post.

0 Replies

We disagree. BTW, did you see info on the Indiana study covered earlier in this thread. I recall that it contradicts you relative to innocent people getting hurt. Moreover, I see this in the news about every other week.

Discussed earlier is the case of seven kids in a car being chased at up to 100 mph. All died in the crash. I think they were all innocent victims. BTW, the chase started because, according to the officer, the car was being driven erratically. Hell, they deserved to die, right?

0 Replies

Quote:

We disagree. BTW, did you see info on the Indiana study covered earlier in this thread. I recall that it contradicts you relative to innocent people getting hurt. Moreover, I see this in the news about every other week.

As I can't find the particular post you are referring to, can you link it, or at least give me the page reference?

Quote:

Discussed earlier is the case of seven kids in a car being chased at up to 100 mph. All died in the crash. I think they were all innocent victims. BTW, the chase started because, according to the officer, the car was being driven erratically. Hell, they deserved to die, right?

I also saw that you had this to say about that particular chase :

Quote:

My guess is that the cop saw a bunch of black teens in an old car with a temporary tire and figured that there may be violation. Thus, he flashed his lights and sounded his siren for the car to stop. I doubt the cop's claim that the kids were driving erratically. At that point, the kids drove off at high speed, with the cop in pursuit. The chase was at speeds reaching 100 mph.

Much of the circumstances seems to be a guess on your part, does it not?

I then notice that linkat tried finding the pursuit to which you refered, noted in this post :

Quote:

Linkat
I did find one where multiple teenagers were killed in a police pursued highway chase. (Only one I could find with multiple teenagers and all were killed). It was in lots of different media as well as at one of subject of a chat type room for NASCAR. It took place in North Carolina. Although the details are slightly different Seven teens - the car was driving originally on a highway - weaving in and out and speeding. The similarities - several teens, driving with a spare tire - all killed as a result of the high speed chase.
It sounds as if he may have stretched the truth a bit - on a deserted stretch of road - driving slowly. Unless it is a coincidence that there is another with very similar details that is not publicized

And a further related post from Noddy24

Quote:

Noddy 24
________________________________________
From Linkat's link:
Quote:
The driver was identified as a 15-year-old, and the father of one of the
victims said none of the teens had licenses and the group had been borrowing
cars for joyrides.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.howard-stern/browse_thread/thread/d8cfb96544225534/8a365e9151b3c8e0%238a365e9151b3c8e0

"Borrowing" cars. Borrowing cars with or without the permission of the owners? Is driving at fifteen legal in North Carolina? Would you knowingly lend your car to seven joy-riding teenagers?

I did find this post from you re alleged stats :

Quote:

Advocate
Set, here are some stats that will just kill you. Please note that there is injury or death in one of five chases, and property damage in one of three chases.

For any meaningful analysis, minor injury, serious injury, and death have to be separate. A criminal suffering whiplash when he crashes his car is no big deal, but with doubt many police jurisdictions will record that as an injury. That there is property damage doesn't say infer too much information eitheris it a broken fence? A knocked over rubbish bin? A demolished house?

Now getting back to people 'deserving' to die. They could have lived. All they had to do was make the choice not to speed. That's pretty simple is it not?

How do you explain your stance that when it all comes back to it, that every single person you are defending had it within their power to not get injured, and not hurt anyone else? Attempting to say that the police make their decisions for them is diminishing any responsibility that these people have for making their own decisions. It is encouraging such people, because 'the police made me do it'. We are all entirely responsible for our own decisions, and we cannot shift blame onto any other member of society. Any other argument is a lie and a deception propogated by society.

0 Replies

Linkat was wrong. The teens were first seen in a commercial area, driving relatively slowly. You are wrong in saying that all the victims could have saved themselves. The driver chose to flee, not the six passengers, who were little kids. This is pretty typical inasmuch innocent passengers are often included in the victims. But an arrest is the officer's main concern.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Linkat was wrong. The teens were first seen in a commercial area, driving relatively slowly. You are wrong in saying that all the victims could have saved themselves. The driver chose to flee, not the six passengers, who were little kids. This is pretty typical inasmuch innocent passengers are often included in the victims. But an arrest is the officer's main concern.

Yes I humbly agree I was wrong - I misread the article - they ended up on the highway weaving in and out - they did not begin the chase on the highway.

0 Replies

Quote:

Linkat was wrong. The teens were first seen in a commercial area, driving relatively slowly.

Fair enough. Was it the same incident you were refering to?

Quote:

You are wrong in saying that all the victims could have saved themselves. The driver chose to flee, not the six passengers, who were little kids.

Sorry, by little kids, how old are we talking about? I saw a mention of 15 years old. Are they all of that age, or was that only the driver?

Were they so small they can't be seen, or so big that they seemed like adults? (I will hazard a guess that none of this is mentioned in the article, for it's not newsworthy).

You see, I agree that young children should not be pursued (as I've said previously, I quite agree that their should be strict guidelines on pursuits) - mostly because young children don't always fully understand the consequences of their actions. Once they are capable of understanding, there is no excuse for the driver. The passengers would depend on the circumstances, though most every time I've heard of passengers being involved, they have been party to the pursuit.

That said, this is a single incident that should rightly be judged on it's merits, but it in no way argues for the abandonment of pursuits, but rather for clearer guidelines on pursuits.

0 Replies

I suppose it could be difficult for the police to know whether these were children or adults when you see them in a car. Most 15 year olds tower over me. Many are as large and look like adults especially when viewing from a distance.

0 Replies

SHOULD POLICE AUTO CHASES BE CURTAILED?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know