Supreme Court to decide on Use of Deadly Force in Police Pursuits

[sundevil777 99]

Quote

I think the weight of the loss would dominate the gain under most probabilities.

You've seen the bad side of the benefit/risk ratio. If you had known someone that had been the victim of a crime committed by a person that was able to commit the crime because they previously escaped the police because of a no-chase policy, then you would probably think differently.

I think your evaluation that "the loss dominates the gain under most probabilities is biased by your friend's experience. My uninformed guess would be the opposite of your uninformed guess.

Not too many people flee from police for traffic offenses, right? So your claim that it is natural to panic and flee doesn't seem valid.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[willard 0]

Kid is speeding. Cop clocks kid speeding. Cop truns on lights and pursues. Simple to this point.
Now the kid has a choice. He can obey the law and pull over. Or he can try to elude.
Since he chose to attempt to elude he has now broken two laws. The cop used the minimum force needed to aprehend the kid. It was the kids own actions that determined the force needed.
The paralysis shouldn't even be considered. The kid chose to ignore common knowledge of the benefits of wearing seat belts.
The kid made some mistakes and paid a very high price for those mistakes. But everything that happened was a direct result of his own actions and/or inactions.
As far as violating civil rights....I don't see how. The kid forfeited certain rights the instant he decided not to comply with the cops instructions.

But then, I'm not schooled in legal issues.

[sundevil777 99]

Quote

The cost of a life is on the order of a few million dollars. What's the cost to society of a warrant-issued criminal not being caught for an additional day? I'd guess it can't be more than a few dollars.

What's the marginal contribution of random car chases to catching suspects with outstanding warrants?

What is the likelihood of catching a warrant issued suspect in a random chase, and the likelihood of killing someone? With these ranges, I suspect you'd have to have a ratio of hundreds of thousands or millions of criminals caught per life lost to make it worthwhile.

The extension of that logic would be that the police should never attempt to pull someone over. They shouldn't even get close enough behind you to make you think they are going to pull you over. They should stay out of sight, just getting your license number to hopefully be able to get you later, assuming that they can find you just based on your license information, and that you won't try to evade capture by driving away from them.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

The extension of that logic would be that the police should never attempt to pull someone over.

Indeed, we are talking about pulling over essentially random people to see if they have outstanding warrants. There's good reason this doesn't happen (that much--roadblocks are ostensibly for DUI anyway) and there you have it.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[sundevil777 99]

Quote

Quote

The extension of that logic would be that the police should never attempt to pull someone over.

Indeed, we are talking about pulling over essentially random people to see if they have outstanding warrants. There's good reason this doesn't happen (that much--roadblocks are ostensibly for DUI anyway) and there you have it.

When did we move to the subject of pulling people over randomly? I thought it involved being pulled over for a traffic violation.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

I thought it involved being pulled over for a traffic violation

that's not random, is it

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Jerry, taking that to its logical extension, every speeding car constitutes deadly force, to be reckoned with via deadly counter-force. Do you really want to skid down that slippery slope?

That's why I qualified the threat with "imminent" - which is the Garner standard cited in the Respondent's brief. I was very careful with that consideration, Go back and re-read.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[sundevil777 99]

Quote

Quote

I thought it involved being pulled over for a traffic violation

that's not random, is it

You had said:

Quote

Indeed, we are talking about pulling over essentially random people to see if they have outstanding warrants.

We weren't talking about pulling people over just to see if they had outstanding warrants. We were talking about pulling people over to give them a ticket for a traffic violation.

So, no, it isn't random.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[moodyskydiver 0]

Quote

Ticket ALL of them? I guess you've never driven on the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago.

Sorry, bad phrasing on my part.I was referring to those speeding/fleeing from LEO.B/c it does seem to be a trend that the longer a chase continues,the more ballsy and reckless the speeder-in-question becomes, thus the more probable that someone will get hurt.

Does that make more sense?

"...just an earthbound misfit, I."

[warpedskydiver 0]

Ticket ALL of them? I guess you've never driven on the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago.

[rehmwa 2]

the analogy made sense, but then the crime of causing a speeding chase is a deadly threat to society and should be defined as such - so if they run, then shooting the driver is an option, hopefully not the only one needed or at least the last choice per the cop's judgement - better options are spike strips and pushing the car off the road and road blocks, or even following and picking them up later.

the runaway criminal in his car? Here's an analogy - how is that different from the criminal standing in the mall and shooting his gun in different directions? damn skippy the cop should be able to shoot him if the publick is in danger. I'd like people to replace "speeding car" with "shooting gun" and then moan about the poor criminals.

and this should be a separate crime and not in context of whatever happened before, and we shouldn't care if the initiating crime was speeding, or littering (or murder), all it means is that the criminal committed a minor crime and then followup up with a major crime

response for littering, get a ticket

response for causing a high speed chase, treat it as a felony - if the manuver is considered potential deadly force, then that's the appropriate response

If you drive recklessly away from a littering ticket? Well, you get a ticket for littering, and felony charge for driving recklessly - just like as if you did them in different months in front of different cops.

Establishing policy that encourages idiots to run away is NOT in the best interests of society.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

We weren't talking about pulling people over just to see if they had outstanding warrants. We were talking about pulling people over to give them a ticket for a traffic violation.

You were proposing chasing speeders for only the reason that they might have outstanding warrants. That is random, and disproportionate.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[sundevil777 99]

Quote

Quote

We weren't talking about pulling people over just to see if they had outstanding warrants. We were talking about pulling people over to give them a ticket for a traffic violation.

You were proposing chasing speeders for only the reason that they might have outstanding warrants. That is random, and disproportionate.

Wrong. It would not be the ONLY reason, and it is not random. Without the ability to pursue, police would be without any power. More people would choose to flee, and they would know that as long as they are driving dangerously as they flee, the police would not pursue them - but they would still be driving recklessly for some time. I say that would result in more danger to the public. Also, those with outstanding warrants would be free to commit more crimes instead of being caught.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Without the ability to pursue, police would be without any power.

We're not talking about prohibiting pursuit, but restricting it to real emergencies, not speeders. And we're not talking about making evading arrest a lawful practice. Grab his plate number and bust him when he gets home / shows up at his girlfriend's house.

It's not worth the risk to the PO's life to encourage them to escalate situations disproportionately like this, neither the suspect.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Andy9o8 1]

Quote

Establishing policy that encourages idiots to run away is NOT in the best interests of society.

Agreed. And likewise, having a policy that mandates that pursuit will never be broken off, no matter what the suspected offense, and especially no matter what the danger to the nearby public (which was pretty much the old model), is also not in the best interests of society. The old model was flawed.

The two interests must be weighed in the balance to craft a reasonable protocol.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The two interests must be weighed in the balance to craft a reasonable protocol.

I think that this is the problem that is faced - it allows too much wiggle room and a lot of discretionary function. It's actually what this case is about - is the officer's action reasonable?

For those of you who don't know, government entities are immune from lawsuits - unless the government allows the suit to proceed via a law. So, the feds and the state have created versions of a "Tort Claims Act" that provide procedures for suing governments. Most of these have what are called "discretionary function exceptions" buolt into them, meaning that if an agent of the government has discretion to choose to act one way or another, then immunities apply that preclude liability. (p.s. - this is a very bare bones explanation).

From this, the inividuals can be sued but may have immunities, as well. Some individuals are absolutely immune. Others get a "qualified immunity," which means that they are immune so long as their actions fall within the haze of standards for performance. Cops get it is a reasonable officer would have believed that the search or seizure was lawful in light of clearly established existing law.

So, the whole case depends on whether the officer's conduct was reasonable as a matter of law. If it is, then the officer is entitled to immunity and the court lacks jurisdiction to find him liable. At least that's what I think.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

We weren't talking about pulling people over just to see if they had outstanding warrants. We were talking about pulling people over to give them a ticket for a traffic violation.

You were proposing chasing speeders for only the reason that they might have outstanding warrants. That is random, and disproportionate.

You're not really thinking things through today.

First, you did a high school version of game theory that stops at the single act and ignores the macro view of what happens if cops don't chase anyone.

And then this - I think common sense will suggest that there is a HUGE corelation between traffic suspect that choose to run and those that have outstanding warrants. If I see a red light come on behind me, I stop and get a ticket. The gain of saving $200 doesn't warrant the risk of jail time, suspended license, criminal record. If someone with a warrant stops, he goes to jail.

It's not remotely random. It's one of the strongest examples of probable cause you'd see on the roads.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Establishing policy that encourages idiots to run away is NOT in the best interests of society.

Agreed. And likewise, having a policy that mandates that pursuit will never be broken off, no matter what the suspected offense, and especially no matter what the danger to the nearby public (which was pretty much the old model), is also not in the best interests of society.

1 - I doubt there is any policy that says pursuit will never be broken off.

2 - "suspected offense"???? The KNOWN offense is reckless driving, reckless public endangerment, and running from the arrest. The original crime has nothing to do with it once they run. It can only make the pursuit MORE necessary, not less.

Agreed. And the decision to use other means of ensuring the arrest are at the discretion of the cop (from shooting the guy, all the way down to finding him at home).

The old model is not flawed: Cops already have the discretion to use whatever means necessary to make the arrest, and also the obligation to use the least lethal option they feel is available without putting themselves and the public into unneeded danger.

The flaw is not the model, it's the sporadic misapplication. But, even when we get bad results, the only 'Cause' is the criminal running instead of complying. Certainly, the criminal is really really stupid if the offense is something like speeding or littering.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It's not remotely random. It's one of the strongest examples of probable cause you'd see on the roads.

even so, it's still a moot point

he's chased down because he's recklessly running away - that should be sufficient to warrant the stop by the cops

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

I think common sense will suggest

I think common sense has been thoroughly debunked.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Andy9o8 1]

Here's an interesting, and very similar, police-chase case addressed by the South Dakota Supreme Court. It's interesting not only in its analysis, but because it provides a mini-survey of several other similar cases that have been dealt with by courts in numerous states. As you can see, police-chase cases are quite a struggle for courts to deal with.

http://www.court.state.nd.us/court/opinions/910374.htm

The US Supreme Court agrees to hear (grants certiorari to) only a tiny percentage of the cases submitted to it for review. Sometimes the reason the SCOTUS decides to hear a certain case is because courts throughout the country have struggled with a particular issue so much that it feels it must speak with finality to pronounce a uniform standard to be used in all such cases. That's probably why it agreed to hear the Scott v. Harris case.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

First, you did a high school version of game theory that stops at the single act and ignores the macro view of what happens if cops don't chase anyone.

In a repeat game, society loses again and again. There's nothing different about the repeat game because the perps have a winning strategy that induces the police not to chase. They already demonstrate their willingness to risk injury for the probability of escape, this is empirical.

That's tough luck (or good brinksmanship, your choice), our response should not be to play our hand badly. Our long term goal as a society should be to reengineer the game so that the perp's winning strategy is aligned with ours lawful action. Until then we should play for our own interest, not for the perp's loss.

edit: the perp's winning strategy is already aligned with ours, duh, just it happens to wind up with the perp escaping right now...

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?