[quote=“Bigairskier1580,post:7,topic:28532"”]
1st part - Whose to say this person isn’t fleeing because they just murdered someone and is a dangerous threat to society if allowed to escape? Innocent people don’t just lead police on high speed chases. This guy had already rammed into a police car, he would have no problem slamming his car into another motorist.
Part 2 - Biker caused the death of someone through his actions. If your actions cause the death of someone, even if you didn’t DIRECTLY kill them, you’re screwed.
[/quote]
Part 1 - I said in the first sentence that I agree with the verdict of this kid, not with the blanked law they’re passing
Part 2 - The trooper who chased the biker in a SUV tearing around a corner at high speeds when the biker was well out of site pushed his vehicle and driving abilities beyond his limit.The fact is he is now dead because of HIS actions. He wasn’t pushed off the road or slammed in to. Tell me, if you were a trooper chasing a biker because he was simply going fast, would you risk going above and beyond just to tell the person he was going 80 is a 55? No
[quote=“02CelicaGt,post:9,topic:28532"”]
In response to Schema…
How are police officer’s supposed to determine whether or not someone is driving beyond their limitations?
[/quote]
Observation.
[quote=“92slowcivic,post:10,topic:28532"”]
In response to Schema…
Are you saying that being scared or nervous gives you the right to run from the police and lead them on a high speed chase? And then, when you do, the police should realize that chasing you is pushing you beyond your driving ability so they should let you go? That makes perfect sense…:bloated:
[/quote]
I’m not going to respond to your first sentence, because it’s so far off base it’s not worth explaining. If I wanted to say it was ok to run if people are nervous/scared, I would have said so. I stated the simple fact of that’s what people do, regardless of reason. This doesn’t make running ok in any situation. Please to manipulate and rearrange anything I say to mean something entirely different. The second part, is when police determine you are causing no harm to any person or persons other than you and the pursuing officer when it becomes evident the chasee is going beyond their limits, then officers should make that decision.
[quote=“JayS,post:11,topic:28532"”]
My vote for understatement of the year.
The kid was already speeding with a suspended license before the police even got involved. He was a risk to the public right there, and only became more of a risk when he ran.
I can see suing the police if they decided to try the pit manuever with a bunch of oncoming traffic, and some innocent person was hurt or killed, but the only person who got hurt was the criminal, and he was the one putting everyone else at risk. I don’t care how “scared” you claim to be later, you knew running from the police was risky.
Personally I think police should be much more aggressive in their pursuit tactics. Their current policies seem to be to follow until a crash, and that crash usually involves some innocent person. As soon as there is an opportunity to take a fleeing vehicle off the road without risk to other drivers, the fleeing vehicle should be taken out with little to no regard to the safety of the criminal.
[/quote]
Again, my argument has NOTHING to do with this kid, other than the Supreme Court passing a blanked law against it. I agree in your last statement, but what if the pursuit WASNT able to take the person out when they had the chance, then chased them into heavy traffic/pedestrian area and remained hard on their tail. This is where officers should make that decision.