Excessive Force?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 27, 2007, 1:29 pm

The Supreme Court finds itself smack in the middle of a big debate over high-speed chases.

Officers in Georgia were chasing a speeding Victor Harris in 2001 when a cruiser rammed Harris' Cadillac at roughly 90 miles-per-hour, sending him into an embankment and leaving him paralyzed.

Harris sued Deputy Timothy Scott for violating his civil rights by using excessive force. Scott said he was trying to end the chase before anybody got hurt. Two lower courts sided with Harris.

This will be the first time in more than 20 years that the high court considers constitutional limits on police use of deadly force to stop fleeing suspects.

Harris' lawyer argues something more serious than a traffic violation has to occur before such force is used. Scott's attorney counters he didn't use excessive force, and that Harris was driving recklessly.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » February 27, 2007, 1:36 pm

Guess he should of Pulled over, Now he can look foward to Blowing to go right and sucking to go left.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » February 27, 2007, 1:37 pm

The police did what they had to do to stop someone who was putting other people at risk by driving like a maniac.

Would they have been better off if they had let this guy go and he went on to plow into a group of people on the sidewalk?

Frankly this guy is suffering the consequence of his reckless actions and deserves no better than what he has.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 27, 2007, 1:39 pm

I can't vote on this poll (other than "Hookers") without more information. Was his only crime speeding? He must have been evading as well. How far did they chase him, where and at what time did the chase occur (how populated was the road he was on. cars, pedestrians, etc), what were the high-water marks on his top speed...

If the guy was going 20 over and didn't pull over for a mile on a mostly-empty highway, I'd say the cop probably used excessive force. If he was hitting 120 during rush hour with 15 cops chasing him for 20 miles, I'd say the cop might have done what was necessary.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 27, 2007, 1:52 pm

In my opinion you give up your constitutional rights the moment you fail to comply with a law enforcement officer in a traffic incident. Evading the police while you're behind the wheel of 2-3 tons of metal is much more dangerous than simply running from the police and you put yourself (and more importantly other people) at risk of serious injury when the police try to disable your vehicle.

This dirtbag tried to run from the cops and now he has to face the consequences! (read that in the voice of the guy from worlds scariest police chases)

A lot of people think the cops will stop chasing you if you start to drive at really excessive speeds or really recklessly. Most of the times they will just PIT you into a tree though.

The police have no idea why you're running when they chase you after you speed off from a routine traffic violation. I gather they assume that no sane human would risk jail time and their and other's life to get out of a speeding ticket. A cop has to assume the worst: you're running because you have something illegal in your car, are wanted or some other reason to avoid capture. The excuse that he was paralyzed because of a cop's actions over a traffic violation is retarded in the extreme and the supreme court should laugh his ass out of chambers.

Some people are genuinely afraid of the police, and for a good reason. That doesn't mean you don't have to stop when they put the lights on though!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 27, 2007, 1:56 pm

kyoukan wrote:Some people are genuinely afraid of the police, and for a good reason. That doesn't mean you don't have to stop when they put the lights on though!

You don't have to stop immediately, but you sure as hell shouldn't accelerate!

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 27, 2007, 2:37 pm

My answer: Yes, based on the very limited information available with this article, the police seem to be at fault. If there were other circumstances not presented in the article that justify the use of deadly force then maybe not. Here's why I feel this way:

Generally speaking, using your vehicle to ram an occupied police car is a good way to get yourself charged with attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon because the authorities consider this act to be using deadly force against the cop. Thus, the reverse must be true - cops ramming a vehicle are using deadly force. There have been a few legal precedents established that both agree and disagree with this premise, which is why this is headed to the supremes in the first place. The use of a PIT maneuver at such high speeds greatly increases the presumptive risk of serious injury or death. Because the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect is prohibited by law, a strong argument can be made that this is situation is equivalent to the police officer shooting the man while fleeing. This seems to be the argument that his attorneys have successfully made so far, although with the current makeup of the SCOTUS, I can see the previous rulings being overturned pretty easily.

I've always believed that high speed chases are something that just shouldn't happen in the vast majority of situations. They put far too many people beyond the chase participants at risk, and all too frequently end badly. Something like 40% of chases end in significant property damage, 25% with injury - frequently to innocent bystanders - and over 300 people are killed as a result of high-speed police chases every year. Often those being chased are irrational, panicked people who are suspected of only misdemeanor offenses. There's far too many stories out there of the some innocent schlub choosing a very bad time to cross the street only to be run over by a moron fleeing from a swarm of police cruisers because they stole 10 bucks worth of gas or they are afraid they'll get caught with 15 bucks worth of weed in their pocket.

Because of the risks, many municipalities have rules requiring police to back out of a chase situation in all but the most extreme cases when the suspect is believed to be so violent and imminently dangerous that the risks of a chase are justified. Too many places allow - and even glorify - the police chase. Ethically, this is similar to the growing overuse of SWAT teams by many police departments around the country: they cause far more potential problems than it seems to solve, and when fully analyzed are rarely worth the trouble and risk in the first place.

There's no question that an reckless and irrational person wielding a couple tons of auto is a danger to all on the road, but in most cases, they're only driving in the erratic, dangerous manner because they're evading the pursuit. In the vast majority of cases, society is better served by ending the pursuit, and attempting to apprehend suspects later.

Denadeb · Post by **Denadeb** » February 27, 2007, 2:43 pm

You said a lot of what I wanted to

To be honest in most states its actually against the law for the police to do high speed chases unless the person has done something of a violent nature. Speeding isn't one of them. The reason is it actually put more people at risk than just letting them go and getting them later at there house. Evading isn't a violent crime even though it is a felony.

If the guy was just speeding and then evading get the plate number and get him later you put less people in harms way by not escalating the incident. Now if the guy had some sort of violent crime then the officer was in his rights to stop the guy. There really isn't enough info in the story but it sounds like it was just a traffic violation.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 27, 2007, 2:46 pm

Xatrei wrote:My answer: Yes, based on the very limited information available with this article, the police seem to be at fault. If there were other circumstances not presented in the article that justify the use of deadly force then maybe not. Here's why I feel this way:

Generally speaking, using your vehicle to ram an occupied police car is a good way to get yourself charged with attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon because the authorities consider this act to be using deadly force against the cop. Thus, the reverse must be true - cops ramming a vehicle are using deadly force. There have been a few legal precedents established that both agree and disagree with this premise, which is why this is headed to the supremes in the first place. The use of a PIT maneuver at such high speeds greatly increases the presumptive risk of serious injury or death. Because the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect is prohibited by law, a strong argument can be made that this is situation is equivalent to the police officer shooting the man while fleeing. This seems to be the argument that his attorneys have successfully made so far, although with the current makeup of the SCOTUS, I can see the previous rulings being overturned pretty easily.

I've always believed that high speed chases are something that just shouldn't happen in the vast majority of situations. They put far too many people beyond the chase participants at risk, and all too frequently end badly. Something like 40% of chases end in significant property damage, 25% with injury - frequently to innocent bystanders - and over 300 people are killed as a result of high-speed police chases every year. Often those being chased are irrational, panicked people who are suspected of only misdemeanor offenses. There's far too many stories out there of the some innocent schlub choosing a very bad time to cross the street only to be run over by a moron fleeing from a swarm of police cruisers because they stole 10 bucks worth of gas or they are afraid they'll get caught with 15 bucks worth of weed in their pocket.

Because of the risks, many municipalities have rules requiring police to back out of a chase situation in all but the most extreme cases when the suspect is believed to be so violent and imminently dangerous that the risks of a chase are justified. Too many places allow - and even glorify - the police chase. Ethically, this is similar to the growing overuse of SWAT teams by many police departments around the country: they cause far more potential problems than it seems to solve, and when fully analyzed are rarely worth the trouble and risk in the first place.

There's no question that an reckless and irrational person wielding a couple tons of auto is a danger to all on the road, but in most cases, they're only driving in the erratic, dangerous manner because they're evading the pursuit. In the vast majority of cases, society is better served by ending the pursuit, and attempting to apprehend suspects later.

I agree. If they let the dude go he is gonna slow down and go hide wherever he is gonna hide, and they can just find him later.

The cops are also putting people at risk by chasing cars at high speeds, so is it really that important to catch a dude that may have robbed a liquor store that you are going to take the risk of killing innocent bystanders?

Gzette · Post by **Gzette** » February 27, 2007, 3:06 pm

kyoukan wrote:In my opinion you give up your constitutional rights the moment you fail to comply with a law enforcement officer in a traffic incident.

I don't think you really meant this. If you did you empower the police to arrest for not answering questions, not allowing them to search your car etc etc.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » February 27, 2007, 3:07 pm

From the severely limited info available, I have to say I'm with Kyou on this one. There is no way for the police to know wtf the guy did or will do: all the police officers have to assist in their judgement with this situation are his known actions which are of an unlawful, and potentially dangerous nature. This guy could have any number of reasons for not pulling over and 99.9% are invalid. A car can be a weapon, so the cops using theirs to take him down before he takes someone else down is no different from them shooting a guy pulling a gun. Sucks the guy is paralyzed but its his own damned fault.

Morgrym · Post by **Morgrym** » February 27, 2007, 3:24 pm

One life vs Countless lives if he is allowed to continue evasion. I have no idea if they attempted to use non deadly force prior to "Pitting" the offender. That would be the only thing that they could have done wrong that would have them on the bad end of a law suit.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » February 27, 2007, 4:07 pm

I read in another article that he was trying to escape the police so I don't think the police are at fault. I feel no sympathy for this guy. He could have done a lot worse to someone else.

I do think they need to reexamine their procedure though.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 27, 2007, 4:07 pm

Gzette wrote:
kyoukan wrote:In my opinion you give up your constitutional rights the moment you fail to comply with a law enforcement officer in a traffic incident.
I don't think you really meant this. If you did you empower the police to arrest for not answering questions, not allowing them to search your car etc etc.

I meant for the purposes of making the driver of the car stop when a cop puts his flashers on behind you. Anything beyond that would fall under normal laws.

In other words, if you run from the cops and they take out your car and cripple you, I consider that to be your own damn fault.

Running from the police already gives them enough cause to search your vehicle. And no one can force you to answer questions regardless, not to mention even serial killers and child molesters still retain that right.

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » February 27, 2007, 8:18 pm

Saw the video on the news here the other night (this is GA, after all).

The moron is breaking 100+ at points during the chase, blowing through red lights and heading out on 2-lane country roads.

The cop used a standard PIT maneuver. I do question the wisdom of the officer to execute it at such high speeds, but it has been shown to be an effective means of ending pursuits.

I don't feel sorry for the fuckhead. If you get lit up by a cop, pull off to the side and obey the law. It's his own damn fault he's paralyzed now. If he'd done as he was supposed to, it wouldn't be an issue.

His shit bag lawyer is arguing that the guy wasn't posing an immediate threat to anyone and that the police argument is invalid. It just floors me that the asshole was putting his life, the officers' lives, and potentially other innocent peoples' lives at risk through his recklessness. HE set the tone for the chase, not the cops.

Go ahead, run from the cops. But don't come crying to me when you end up dead because you're a fuckhead.

Neost · Post by **Neost** » February 27, 2007, 8:25 pm

The cop that did the pit was hit by the suspect when they had him blocked in, that's how he got away again.

Once he hit that car, all bets were off. They had him blocked in and he rammed the cop to get away. That shows his intent and a total lack of disregard for the safety of other.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 27, 2007, 8:30 pm

Xatrei wrote:I've always believed that high speed chases are something that just shouldn't happen in the vast majority of situations. They put far too many people beyond the chase participants at risk, and all too frequently end badly.

So if a cop sees me breaking the law, all I have to do is speed away really fast and they won't chase me? That's fucking fantastic. Let me know if you ever become a lawmaker so I can move to whatever country to reside in and start robbing banks.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 27, 2007, 8:32 pm

I know a lot of cities/states whatever do not allow high speed chases for exactly the reason I outlined above- and I think that is the way it should be.

And Kooky, no they won't just speed up and get away - the cops will get them, and probably in a safer situation.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 27, 2007, 8:38 pm

How are you going to catch me if you don't chase me, moron? Do you think criminals use the family car to commit crimes?

oh, haha, you probebly do. nevermind!

Truant · Post by **Truant** » February 27, 2007, 8:39 pm

After reading further information (Thanks Vae) I feel the force used was not excessive.

Drinsic Darkwood · Post by **Drinsic Darkwood** » February 27, 2007, 8:44 pm

Serves the piece of shit right.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 27, 2007, 8:55 pm

I don't think that is excessive use of force in this case.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » February 27, 2007, 9:03 pm

kyoukan wrote:How are you going to catch me if you don't chase me, moron? Do you think criminals use the family car to commit crimes?

oh, haha, you probebly do. nevermind!

Obviously it never gets old being a fucking bitch. Let me elaborate for you, most of the time the person the cops are chasing probably isn't on the FBI's ten most wanted list. They probably aren't going to skip town, they are gonna be around and will eventually get caught.

Are you assuming that everyone that decides to try and get away from the cops in their vehicle is driving a stolen car? You would be equally as fucking stupid for assuming that.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 27, 2007, 10:36 pm

kyoukan wrote:So if a cop sees me breaking the law, all I have to do is speed away really fast and they won't chase me? That's fucking fantastic. Let me know if you ever become a lawmaker so I can move to whatever country to reside in and start robbing banks.

I did qualify my comments by saying that there are, of course, situations in which the authorities are completely justified in a high-speed pursuit. If you're seen fleeing the scene of a violent crime, I have no issue at all with the police giving chase. That's exactly what I was referring to when I said "cases when the suspect is believed to be so violent and imminently dangerous that the risks of a chase are justified." If, however, the cops recognize your vehicle as that of a shoplifter that's been active in the area, I think we're all better served by them getting your tag number and following up with it later.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 27, 2007, 11:54 pm

Xatrei wrote: imminently dangerous

Attempting to run at high speed from the cops is imminently dangerous to bystanders

Denadeb · Post by **Denadeb** » February 28, 2007, 12:09 am

Thats true but its also more dangerous if the cops escalate the problem by causing the person to become more erratic. Like I said earlier Its actually Illegal in most states for the police to maintain pursuit if the person has not committed a violent crime or another crime that justifies putting civilians in more danger. Do they adhere to that law in most cases no but its still law and it makes them just as wrong as the person being chased. Its much easier to use the radio and have them pick the person up later down the road or even days later if need be. Having an air unit follow the car is also another option some departments have.

If the guy in the story hit the cop car then they had every right to chase and stop him.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » February 28, 2007, 1:05 am

Like in those "World's Worst" videos where they have half the footage from chase helicopters and they're still maintaining a close quarters, high-speed pursuit through residential areas. Smart...

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 28, 2007, 1:56 am

There should certainly be rules of engagement for high-speed pursuit...But the claim here is that he used excessive force against the plaintiff...Which has nothing at all to do with should he or should he have not been chased. I think it is quite reasonable to attempt to remove a car from the road when the driver has shown reckless disregard for life.

Should the officer have chased, maybe or maybe not...should he have knocked his car of the road, given the opportunity...oh hell yeah.

Al · Post by Al » February 28, 2007, 12:10 pm

Running red lights at 70+ mph certainly constitutes wreckless disregard for others' safety. I don't believe the officer in question acted improperly, and I believe this lawsuit is frivolous and a waste of the tax-payers' money. That said, there must be something we don't know about this case, because 2 courts have already ruled in favor of the dick-bag who ran from the cops and is now crippled because he is stupid. Unless Georgia courts are useless (!), I don't see any reason in the information given that the officer could have acted improperly.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 28, 2007, 12:43 pm

Al wrote:Unless Georgia courts are useless (!), I don't see any reason in the information given that the officer could have acted improperly.

That pretty much sums it up.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » February 28, 2007, 1:42 pm

Zaelath wrote:Like in those "World's Worst" videos where they have half the footage from chase helicopters and they're still maintaining a close quarters, high-speed pursuit through residential areas. Smart...

Thats why they have Lights and Sirens so people get out of the way. Im glad its all sunny and nice where you live.

Post by **Sylvus** » February 28, 2007, 2:05 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Zaelath wrote:Like in those "World's Worst" videos where they have half the footage from chase helicopters and they're still maintaining a close quarters, high-speed pursuit through residential areas. Smart...
Thats why they have Lights and Sirens so people get out of the way. Im glad its all sunny and nice where you live.

I think the point is: why bother with ground pursuit at high speeds and danger to many innocent bystanders when you can use the eye in the sky to just watch them reach their destination and dispactch law enforcement to that location?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 28, 2007, 2:42 pm

I would say there's no easy answer to this. How many high profile criminals have been pulled over in routine traffic stops? If they knew that all they had to do was speed away, why wouldn't they? A helicopter sounds fine, but if the criminals know they can get away by just speeding, all they then have to do is know or find the closest parking garage. On the other hand, how many stupid rednecks run from the cops for having a couple joints in the car? It's certainly not worth risking pedestrians or other drivers trying to stop them..

Police have a tough job, and not one I envy. Sure there are bad cops, but overall I'd say they're regular people that get to see and deal with the worst that the human race has to offer. They've got to assume the worst and go from there. If you give them a blatant reason to be pissed off, it's your own damn fault when it doesn't end your way.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 28, 2007, 3:05 pm

Not every agency has a helicopter in the area of where a chase "might" occur. Sure, they are extremely handy when they are able to get involved in a chase, but they aren't going to be anywhere near the spot needed unless the chase is already taking place.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 28, 2007, 3:56 pm

Another problem with Helicopters is, often, you cannot positively ID who got out of the vehicle. They can always say nah it was another guy driving and usually the police cannot prove otherwise. Someone has to witness the driver getting out of the vehicle to make it stick.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 28, 2007, 4:13 pm

Arborealus wrote:Someone has to witness the driver getting out of the vehicle to make it stick.

That's good to know!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 28, 2007, 5:32 pm

Those fingerprints were planted on that steering wheel! IT'S A FUCKING FRAME-UP!!!

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 28, 2007, 6:23 pm

This particular person and case is a great example of one of many things wrong with this country. Seriously, no one takes personal responsibility anymore. It would've been better if this person would've just died on impact instead.

I hope the courthouse isn't wheelchair accessible so he can sue the state next.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 28, 2007, 6:26 pm

masteen wrote:Those fingerprints were planted on that steering wheel! IT'S A FUCKING FRAME-UP!!!

I drive that car regularly but some kids must have taken it then. I was home the entire time. A DA wouldn't touch it.

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » February 28, 2007, 10:13 pm

If the DA was hot enough, maybe I'd want her to touch it.

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » April 30, 2007, 3:22 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/30 ... us.html?hp

Supreme Court smackdown on the quad! 8 to 1 has to hurt.

VeeshanVault

Excessive Force?

Do you think the police are at fault?

Excessive Force?