Civil Rights to Flee

[slacker]

Irregular News for 02.27.07

 

Georgia -- 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.

 

source

[AR Husker Fan]

I should think that the argument that it was done to protect the public would suffice...

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I'm all for a good chase and ending it in a way that does not endanger the public..................however peace officers are trained to not attempt the pit manuever at that high of speed!!! 90 MPH is way to fast to attempt that maneuver considering the risks involved to the officer and the subject that he is involved in the chase with. Not saying he was wrong just telling everyone how we are trained.

[AR Husker Fan]

Wouldn't it depend on the circumstances? If the guy is using the car as a weapon, wouldn't you be permitted to use sufficient force to disable the "weapon"?

[BIGREDIOWAN]

It always comes down to what a "reasonable person" would do in the same circumstances. Let's say for instance that the officer was considered wrong in what he did, but would a reasonable person in the same circumstances do the same thing. We don't know the particulars of what was going on at that point and time so we are kinda in the dark there. However; we normally don't chase someone for something as simple as a traffic violation. They would have to have a warrant or there would have to be an immediate threat to the public's safety.

[Blackshirtsguru]

Wouldn't it depend on the circumstances? If the guy is using the car as a weapon, wouldn't you be permitted to use sufficient force to disable the "weapon"?

Yep....if a turd tries to run over and crash into an Officer then it is considered deadly force...Thus....Deadly force we use is authorized.

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

When they showed the video on the news it clearly showed the driver swerving into oncoming traffic at 100mph. I believe that would count as endangering public safety.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

There you go then.................the officer did what he had to so the threat was stopped.

[husker rob]

It always comes down to what a "reasonable person" would do in the same circumstances. Let's say for instance that the officer was considered wrong in what he did, but would a reasonable person in the same circumstances do the same thing. We don't know the particulars of what was going on at that point and time so we are kinda in the dark there. However; we normally don't chase someone for something as simple as a traffic violation. They would have to have a warrant or there would have to be an immediate threat to the public's safety.

there you have it boys and girls. all you have to do in the Des Moines area is drive really fast, and you will not get in to any trouble