Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Supreme Court Case - Excessive Force

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Germany / CA
    Posts
    373

    Supreme Court Case - Excessive Force

    Okay, sorry to start two somber threads in such rapid succession, but I found this Supreme Court case fascinating (it hasn't yet been decided):

    http://docket.medill.northwestern.ed...ves/004069.php

    It raises some very controversial issues, and I thought it might create some interesting discussion regarding excessive force, civil rights, the Fourth Amendment, and, of course, cars

    I'll express my opinions after I see what everyone else thinks (I have to write a three page report on the case, which I can post later if anyone's interested), but in short, I'm in favor of the officer.
    Reutlingen/ San Francisco

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,067
    Something about that stinks. Did they forget that this young man had already endangered the lives of several people by running red lights and stop signs? I'm with the officer too.

    Isn't it the law over there to wear seatbelts yet?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Falls Church (home), Charlottesville (college), Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,606
    Quote Originally Posted by IWantAnAudiRS6
    Something about that stinks. Did they forget that this young man had already endangered the lives of several people by running red lights and stop signs? I'm with the officer too.

    Isn't it the law over there to wear seatbelts yet?
    Yes, seatbelts are the law in 49 of the 50 states if I recall correctly (either Vermont or New Hampshire is the exception). The fact that he wasn't wearing one adds another dimension to this case: Would he still have suffered such serious injuries if he had been wearing his seatbelt? And if he wouldn't have been, can the police be held responsible for injuries sustained due to his decision to disobey the law? But on the other hand, the officer had never been trained in using the PIT maneuver, so should he have even tried it? Nevertheless, I'm siding with the cops on this one.
    UCP's biggest (only?) fan of the '74-'76 Mercury Cougar.
    UCP's proudest owner of a '74 Cougar

    My favorite color is chrome.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas USA
    Posts
    11,227
    When a cop turns on his lights and makes it obvious that you are to pull over, you do it. If you don't, only you are responsible for what happens next. End of story.
    I'm going to eat breakfast. And then I'm going to change the world.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    NEW YORK
    Posts
    6,985
    Quote Originally Posted by Timothy (in VA)
    Yes, seatbelts are the law in 49 of the 50 states if I recall correctly (either Vermont or New Hampshire is the exception). The fact that he wasn't wearing one adds another dimension to this case: Would he still have suffered such serious injuries if he had been wearing his seatbelt? And if he wouldn't have been, can the police be held responsible for injuries sustained due to his decision to disobey the law? But on the other hand, the officer had never been trained in using the PIT maneuver, so should he have even tried it? Nevertheless, I'm siding with the cops on this one.
    Its New Hampshire. Anyone older than 17 can decide if they want to wear seatbelt or not. It's stupid as hell and I hope most of the people there are smarter than the state government.

    As for this case I totally agree with Matt. The officer was just trying to end the chase for public safety. It's the kids own fault he put the pedal to the floor and tried to outrun the cops.
    Last edited by baddabang; 02-05-2007 at 08:41 AM.
    John says:
    so i had to dump acid into the block tank today
    i'm afraid to fap
    cause i got it on my hands

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,067
    So, as this was Georgia, it was illegal for him not to be wearing a seatbelt?

    And he didn't stop for the police. So he can expect what was coming to him. A shame he didn't suffer severe head trauma and get turned into a dribbling vegetable, irresponsible little twat.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Eindhoven
    Posts
    4,059
    It seems like an obvious case to me. Beacuse Harris drove too fast in the 55 mph zone, the officer starts a pursuit. He flashes with his light and I'm sure he used his siren as well. ANY driver, no mather what age or driving history should know what that mean. But Mr. Harris decides to drive even faster and make some more violation of the law, including not wearing a seatbelt.

    Then, officer who has heard and has got a basic knowledge about the PIT technique asks permission to his senior officer to use this technique. Seems like a good way of handling to me. The officer uses the PIT, resulting in a crash that leads to a tragic outcome. A 19-year old gets paralyzed. All because he was too stupid too simply stop for a minor speeding and take the fine. Instead, the guy decides to drive faster and endanger more people.

    It might sounds harsh, but perhaps he got what he deserves. And I might not be totally objective, because a few years back somebody in our street got killed because he was working in the garden when somebody who was followed by 5 police vehicles, lost control and smashed into the house. But I don't feel compassion at all for these kind of idiots.
    "The best thing about this is that you know that it has to come from a country where drugs is legal"

    Top Gear on the Vandenbrink Carver One

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    6,153
    Good call I reckon. I would rather he was paralysed (although it is a huge price to pay for youthful stupidity) than someone who was not involved and thus totally innocent.
    "A string is approximately nine long."
    Egg Nogg 02-04-2005, 05:07 AM

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,067
    The mind boggles, is all I can say. How can that jury be so stupid? I've been thinking about it for most of the day, and not only did they not side with the forces of the law, but they went for the guy who actually committed offences. His own tough luck that he ended up paralysed.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Germany / CA
    Posts
    373
    One thing to consider though (I'm playing Devil's Advocate), is that in all likelyhood a properly executed PIT maneuver wouldn't have resulted in a crash, depending on how many lanes the roads had. That's probably going to be a huge argument for the plaintiff: the officer wasn't trained to perform the PIT, he did so (with or without proper cause) and caused the vehicle to go off the road and crash. Had a trained officer carried out the PIT, the vehicle would lose control, come to a stop, and the suspect would be apprehended.

    This guy's still a dirtbag tho. I'll post the verdict when it comes out, I think it's on the 27th.
    Reutlingen/ San Francisco

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    136
    Not even the fundemental law of darwin can out do the stupidity of man.....



















    (yeah i know that was a good one, should be in a fortune cookie)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Location: Location: (UK)
    Posts
    2,496
    Quote Originally Posted by TVRs4eva View Post
    One thing to consider though (I'm playing Devil's Advocate), is that in all likelyhood a properly executed PIT maneuver wouldn't have resulted in a crash, depending on how many lanes the roads had. That's probably going to be a huge argument for the plaintiff: the officer wasn't trained to perform the PIT, he did so (with or without proper cause) and caused the vehicle to go off the road and crash. Had a trained officer carried out the PIT, the vehicle would lose control, come to a stop, and the suspect would be apprehended.
    Thats why he asked his superior if he could peform the manouver, therefore if its anyones "fault" its still the dumbass kid's.
    PPC - Put a V8 in it!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Northampton, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,989
    Running from the cops = resisting arrest = they can beat your ass if they want.

    I have no sympathy for people who get injured not wearing seat belts.
    [O o)O=\x/=O(o O]

    The things we do for girls who won't sleep with us.

    Patrick says:
    dads is too long so it wont fit
    so i took hers out
    and put mine in

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by TVRs4eva View Post
    the officer wasn't trained to perform the PIT, he did so (with or without proper cause) and caused the vehicle to go off the road and crash.
    Then it would be the sergeant who gave the order's fault.

    In any case I'm in favour of the officer.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Germany / CA
    Posts
    373
    Alrighty, well the decision is finally out, and the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the officer. Poor Mr. paralyzed is getting no help from the state, sorry dude. Here's the link:

    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20070514.html
    Reutlingen/ San Francisco

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •