WN: Supreme Court: Motorists Fleeing Cops Can't Sue - All Headline

[George]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that motorists fleeing police do not have the right to sue pursuing officers if they are injured during the chase.

http://www.worthynews.com/news/allheadline...les-7007200101/

[buckthesystem]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that motorists fleeing police do not have the right to sue pursuing officers if they are injured during the chase.

http://www.worthynews.com/news/allheadline...les-7007200101/

This is disgusting! The article says clearly, quote: "The 8-1 ruling was handed down in the case of a Georgia teenager who was left paralyzed after police ran his car off the road.

If anybody else had caused somebody to be paralysed by running their car off the road, we'd call it criminal injury and they would be held accountable. So what is so special about the police?

Is society today expected to have a child-like trust in the police, even when they injure somebody? The excuse of "I wanted to stop him speeding" wouldn't be tolerated from anybody else, so why .......?

This ruling gives "carte blanche" to any police who want to commit a malicious act of injury and destruction.

Can people support the police when they know that they will "pursue a car" at all costs, including perhaps the cost of the lives of your children who may "get in the way"?

Surely the most staunch obsequious little police supporter cannot condone this.

[apothanein kerdos]

Buck, he was running away from a crime. He had committed a crime and was running away, putting hundreds of lives in danger by doing so. Ending up paralyzed is his own fault. Had he pulled over and accepted his punishment, he'd be able to walk.

[buckthesystem]

Buck, he was running away from a crime. He had committed a crime and was running away, putting hundreds of lives in danger by doing so. Ending up paralyzed is his own fault. Had he pulled over and accepted his punishment, he'd be able to walk.

AP I have sympathy for your viewpoint, but the article doesn't say "he had committed a crime and was running away putting hundreds of lives in danger by doing so" (gee, if if he was he'd have to be incredibly dangerous to put "hundreds" of lives in danger anyway).

So are we to believe that a policeman should be able to act as "judge, jury and executioner", find the person "guilty" on the spot, sentence them to being paralysed for the rest of their life, and then go about carrying out that sentence by "ramming their car"?

Gee, now that is really deifying police officers, isn't it?

And as for a blanket policy of "no accountability" as this ruling has stated. Are we to believe that there are never any rogue, nasty vengeful police officers, that we have just handed this tremendous power to?

[apothanein kerdos]

Buck, he was running away from a crime. He had committed a crime and was running away, putting hundreds of lives in danger by doing so. Ending up paralyzed is his own fault. Had he pulled over and accepted his punishment, he'd be able to walk.

AP I have sympathy for your viewpoint, but the article doesn't say "he had committed a crime and was running away putting hundreds of lives in danger by doing so" (gee, if if he was he'd have to be incredibly dangerous to put "hundreds" of lives in danger anyway).

So are we to believe that a policeman should be able to act as "judge, jury and executioner", find the person "guilty" on the spot, sentence them to being paralysed for the rest of their life, and then go about carrying out that sentence by "ramming their car"?

Gee, now that is really deifying police officers, isn't it?

And as for a blanket policy of "no accountability" as this ruling has stated. Are we to believe that there are never any rogue, nasty vengeful police officers, that we have just handed this tremendous power to?

Guess it's a difference in our cultures. In America, EVERYONE drives. Thus, if you get in a high speed chase with the cops, even in a small town, you are probably putting hundreds of lives at danger.

Secondly, in America, the only time you run from police is if you have been caught or are hiding something. Our police aren't corrupt.

[Axxman]

Buck, he was running away from a crime. He had committed a crime and was running away, putting hundreds of lives in danger by doing so. Ending up paralyzed is his own fault. Had he pulled over and accepted his punishment, he'd be able to walk.

AP I have sympathy for your viewpoint, but the article doesn't say "he had committed a crime and was running away putting hundreds of lives in danger by doing so" (gee, if if he was he'd have to be incredibly dangerous to put "hundreds" of lives in danger anyway).

So are we to believe that a policeman should be able to act as "judge, jury and executioner", find the person "guilty" on the spot, sentence them to being paralysed for the rest of their life, and then go about carrying out that sentence by "ramming their car"?

Gee, now that is really deifying police officers, isn't it?

And as for a blanket policy of "no accountability" as this ruling has stated. Are we to believe that there are never any rogue, nasty vengeful police officers, that we have just handed this tremendous power to?

He was running from a crime. He was speeding...that is illegal. He ran from the police...that is illegal. He crossed over the center line into oncomming traffic...that is illegal. He ran two red lights...that is illegal. He rammed a police car that tried to block his path...that is illegal.

He doesn't have to put 100 lives in danger...just one. Using a Police car to stop another vehicle is part of the "force continuum." In this case, as well as most police agencies, the officer requested permission from his supervisor before using his police vehicle as part of the force continuum. The Supervisor gave the officer permission to use deadly force. This is NOT uncommon when a person uses deadly force on a police officer (i.e. ramming their car.) In the force continuum, deadly force is any force that may cause death...it does not require that death or physical injury happen as a result of such use. So when the officer used deadly force, by ramming the suspect vehicle, his intent does NOT have to be deadly...he must simply be aware that his actions may cause that occurance.

I don't know where you get the "no accountability" idea from. There is constant accountability for every action, word, and deed. Every instance of the "use of force" must be documented...that includes removing your gun from its holster. Pulling out your weapon is part of the force continuum. All this ruling states is that if you run from the police...don't complain (or try to get rich) if they have to use force to stop you. This ruling also doesn't say that EVERY high-speed pursuit is justified. However, if you put a life at risk or commit a felony during the pursuit (like agg. assault on a police officer by ramming his car)...then that pursuit and its eventual end is justified. Whatever the outcome.

TO AK.... thanks for sticking up for police officers here. Thats a rarity on these boards it seems.

[ted]

I don't know who the one dissenter was in this case, but they need their head examined.

These idiot criminals who run wild through our streets risk the lives of many every time they decide to engage in a high-speed chase away from pursuing officers. It's a willful disobedience and a selective choice on their part which often results in the injury of innocent bystanders.

Personally, I think they should have added more to their ruling. They should have allowed the police to slap the heck out of the ones running once they are caught. At the minimum, the punishment for running in a car away from the police should be severely increased.

t.

[Scarletprayers]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that motorists fleeing police do not have the right to sue pursuing officers if they are injured during the chase.

http://www.worthynews.com/news/allheadline...les-7007200101/

This is disgusting! The article says clearly, quote: "The 8-1 ruling was handed down in the case of a Georgia teenager who was left paralyzed after police ran his car off the road.

If anybody else had caused somebody to be paralysed by running their car off the road, we'd call it criminal injury and they would be held accountable. So what is so special about the police?

Is society today expected to have a child-like trust in the police, even when they injure somebody? The excuse of "I wanted to stop him speeding" wouldn't be tolerated from anybody else, so why .......?

This ruling gives "carte blanche" to any police who want to commit a malicious act of injury and destruction.

Can people support the police when they know that they will "pursue a car" at all costs, including perhaps the cost of the lives of your children who may "get in the way"?

Surely the most staunch obsequious little police supporter cannot condone this.

I'm afraid I do bucks!

[Marnie]

I sympathize with the police and respect them, but I have seen far TOO many high speed chases. I just don't think it is worth putting the lives of who knows how many people in danger to catch, what? A burglar? A pimp? Some guy doing some weed? Sorry, it's not worth it, IMO.

[rtwo]

I agree with the ruling, completely. In this country, more and more, we see ways criminals are able to profit from their crimes, or get off lightly. We see where somebody breaking into a home can sue the homeowner for having an icy sidewalk; or where murderers get off scott free because the arresting officer smacked him. I've heard of lawsuits (still ongoing, I believe) in which a drunk driver is suing the family of his victim.

There's a lot wrong with our justice system, and rulings like this help put it right.