Supreme Court Says They Don't Give a Fuck About Your Safety

[WaTcHeR]

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a police officer cannot be held liable for ramming a fleeing car during a high-speed chase, forcing the vehicle off the road and resulting in severe injury or even death for the driver.

By an 8-1 vote, the high court ruled the officer's conduct reasonable because the car chase initiated by the suspect posed a substantial and immediate risk of serious physical injury to others.

Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority that an officer's attempt to end a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatened the lives of innocent bystanders did not violate the Constitution, even if it placed the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.

He said a police video of the incident "resembles a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort."

The Supreme Court took the unusual step of putting the video on its Web site, along with the ruling in the case involving a sheriff's deputy from Coweta County in Georgia. (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/ ... harris.rmv b).

Scalia said the video contradicted the suspect's version of events that pedestrians or other motorists faced little or no threat during the chase.

VIDEOTAPE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF

The video showed the car "racing down narrow, two-lane roads in the dead of night at speeds that are shockingly fast," Scalia said. "We are happy to allow the videotape to speak for itself."

The ruling occurred at a time of increased national debate about high-speech police chases, which have resulted in more than 350 deaths annually in recent years.

The incident began at 10:45 p.m. on March 29, 2001, when a sheriff's deputy clocked Victor Harris driving 73 mph (117 kph) in a 55 mph (88 mph) zone.

When the officer gave chase, Harris speeded up, going at least 90 mph (144 kph) at times, running two red lights and passing other cars while weaving through traffic on the two-lane road.

A second officer, Timothy Scott, rammed the rear of the speeding Cadillac, causing Harris to lose control of the car and go down an embankment. Harris, who was 19 at the time, was paralyzed by injuries he suffered in the crash.

The chase covered about nine miles and lasted six minutes.

The U.S. Justice Department supported Scott and said his use of force was "reasonable" and did not violate any clearly established right. The American Civil Liberties Union supported Harris and said the case should be allowed to proceed to trial.

Harris sued Scott for violating his constitutional rights by using excessive force during the chase. A federal judge and a U.S. appeals court ruled that Scott could be held liable.

The high court overturned the lower court's decision.

Scalia said Harris intentionally placed himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in reckless, high-speed flight.

He rejected the argument by lawyers for Harris that safety could have been assured if the police had simply ceased their pursuit.

Of the nine Supreme Court members, only Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. He said less drastic measures, like using a device to flatten Harris' tires slowly, could have avoided "such a tragic result" that made Harris a quadriplegic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070430/us_ ... e_chase_dc

[WaTcHeR]

Did you really think a group of fascist dictators would care? I'd like to see more cops families killed during high speed chases. Start with Officer Timothy Scott's.

[maddogg1234]

Why should they care about a criminal who endangered the lives of others? Should police not chase those who are running? If they do I hope that the person who isn't chased ends up killing someone that you care about.

Glad to see the Supreme Court having some balls

[Ancap]

Why should they care about a criminal who endangered the lives of others? Should police not chase those who are running? If they do I hope that the person who isn't chased ends up killing someone that you care about.

Glad to see the Supreme Court having some balls

Would the chase occur if the cop hadn't switched on the blues?

Usually these chases (not the one in this thread) are initiated by the cop as the cop initiates aggression (attempting to pull over a vehicle) for a presumed minor crime like invalid/out of date registration stickers. The cop doesn't have to stop the vehicle but can run the plates and issue a warning or citation (coerced revenue for the state) through the mail. Just an example.

On the other hand, I've seen cops drive 20-30 mph over the speed limit without lights and siren. Why? Because the state allows them to do so as long as they use "due caution". Something that is denied to the citizen.

[maddogg1234]

Why should they care about a criminal who endangered the lives of others? Should police not chase those who are running? If they do I hope that the person who isn't chased ends up killing someone that you care about.

Glad to see the Supreme Court having some balls

Would the chase occur if the cop hadn't switched on the blues?

Usually these chases (not the one in this thread) are initiated by the cop as the cop initiates aggression (attempting to pull over a vehicle) for a presumed minor crime like invalid/out of date registration stickers. The cop doesn't have to stop the vehicle but can run the plates and issue a warning or citation (coerced revenue for the state) through the mail. Just an example.

On the other hand, I've seen cops drive 20-30 mph over the speed limit without lights and siren. Why? Because the state allows them to do so as long as they use "due caution". Something that is denied to the citizen.

The cop initiates aggression? You are an ignorant boob. Breaking the law initiates the "aggression", as you call it. Police are simply there to stop the "aggression". Then again I wouldn't expect you to understand the cops since you are as ignorant as they come in regards to "aggression" and the like.

The second part, I'm with you.

[Ancap]

Why should they care about a criminal who endangered the lives of others? Should police not chase those who are running? If they do I hope that the person who isn't chased ends up killing someone that you care about.

Glad to see the Supreme Court having some balls

Would the chase occur if the cop hadn't switched on the blues?

Usually these chases (not the one in this thread) are initiated by the cop as the cop initiates aggression (attempting to pull over a vehicle) for a presumed minor crime like invalid/out of date registration stickers. The cop doesn't have to stop the vehicle but can run the plates and issue a warning or citation (coerced revenue for the state) through the mail. Just an example.

On the other hand, I've seen cops drive 20-30 mph over the speed limit without lights and siren. Why? Because the state allows them to do so as long as they use "due caution". Something that is denied to the citizen.

The cop initiates aggression? You are an ignorant boob. Breaking the law initiates the "aggression", as you call it. Police are simply there to stop the "aggression". Then again I wouldn't expect you to understand the cops since you are as ignorant as they come in regards to "aggression" and the like.

The second part, I'm with you.

I don't wear a seat belt in violation of the statutes set forth by the state. Who am I aggressing against?

I carry concealed in violation of the statutes set forth by the state. Who am I aggressing against?

The state wants to make it out be that the state is the injured party or the victim when in fact the above can't have a victim or injured. In both cases, these are statutes set forth by the state to control the populace through threat of force or as a cash cow for the state.

When a police officer pulls in behind a person (for a presumed moving violation or what have you), switches on the blues the officer is initiating aggression. The mere fact that the cop at the least possesses a loaded handgun and shotgun in his vehicle is proof evidence to me that the cop is initiating aggression through the coercive authority granted to the officer by the state over the citizens.

If it wasn't for the threat of force, most people certainly wouldn't abide by those blue lights.

[WaTcHeR]

The cop initiates aggression? You are an ignorant boob. Breaking the law initiates the "aggression", as you call it. Police are simply there to stop the "aggression". Then again I wouldn't expect you to understand the cops since you are as ignorant as they come in regards to "aggression" and the like.

Many cities around the country have limited police chases to just those who have committed a "felony." Cities have learn after many law suits from the cops hitting or kill innocent pedestrians. "Insurance pays the law suits, tax payers pay the insurance." Cops are always the "aggressors" in police chases. There is no reason for cops to be as reckless as the person they are chasing.

[maddogg1234]

Why should they care about a criminal who endangered the lives of others? Should police not chase those who are running? If they do I hope that the person who isn't chased ends up killing someone that you care about.

Glad to see the Supreme Court having some balls

Would the chase occur if the cop hadn't switched on the blues?

Usually these chases (not the one in this thread) are initiated by the cop as the cop initiates aggression (attempting to pull over a vehicle) for a presumed minor crime like invalid/out of date registration stickers. The cop doesn't have to stop the vehicle but can run the plates and issue a warning or citation (coerced revenue for the state) through the mail. Just an example.

On the other hand, I've seen cops drive 20-30 mph over the speed limit without lights and siren. Why? Because the state allows them to do so as long as they use "due caution". Something that is denied to the citizen.

The cop initiates aggression? You are an ignorant boob. Breaking the law initiates the "aggression", as you call it. Police are simply there to stop the "aggression". Then again I wouldn't expect you to understand the cops since you are as ignorant as they come in regards to "aggression" and the like.

The second part, I'm with you.

I don't wear a seat belt in violation of the statutes set forth by the state. Who am I aggressing against?

I carry concealed in violation of the statutes set forth by the state. Who am I aggressing against?

The state wants to make it out be that the state is the injured party or the victim when in fact the above can't have a victim or injured. In both cases, these are statutes set forth by the state to control the populace through threat of force or as a cash cow for the state.

When a police officer pulls in behind a person (for a presumed moving violation or what have you), switches on the blues the officer is initiating aggression. The mere fact that the cop at the least possesses a loaded handgun and shotgun in his vehicle is proof evidence to me that the cop is initiating aggression through the coercive authority granted to the officer by the state over the citizens.

If it wasn't for the threat of force, most people certainly wouldn't abide by those blue lights.

Seat belt? Noone. I'm with you there. Seat belts shouldn't be required.

Conceal carry? Everyone. If you do not have the license and the training that is required who is to say that you won't miss your intended target if you shoot?

Your whole third paragraph makes zero senses. So the officer initiates aggression because he has a gun? Yet if people wouldn't speed then the officer wouldn't have to bring his gun to the situation. In the world you live in the cops may initiate agression, but here in the real world it's the lawbreakers that do that. If noone broke the law then there would be no need for police.

[maddogg1234]

The cop initiates aggression? You are an ignorant boob. Breaking the law initiates the "aggression", as you call it. Police are simply there to stop the "aggression". Then again I wouldn't expect you to understand the cops since you are as ignorant as they come in regards to "aggression" and the like.

Many cities around the country have limited police chases to just those who have committed a "felony." Cities have learn after many law suits from the cops hitting or kill innocent pedestrians. "Insurance pays the law suits, tax payers pay the insurance." Cops are always the "aggressors" in police chases. There is no reason for cops to be as reckless as the person they are chasing.

Again ignorance abounds here. The cops are not the aggressors in a chase, it's the one breaking the laws. Man I don't know where you get this crap from.