If you are on Sportriders, it’s been discussed ad-nauseum here. Lots more articles covering the trial process and verdict. There is also a thread about the “hero celebration” thing.
There is a reason police activity ramped up across the state last summer.
Wow, when I read that post it just screamed urban legend. I can’t believe they were actually able to convict someone because a retarded state trooper tried to use his SUV as a 100+ mph chase vehicle. I just got a jury duty summons Friday and I would love to be on a jury for a case like that.
And now you see why a lot of us are skeptical about the high speed pursuit rulings. It’s all good when it’s done properly, but their are so many instances where LEO don’t follow protocall and act on ego and adrenaline, there will be a lot of people going to jail for nothing.
Honestly, between that case I linked, Bucky brooks outwitting the state troopers, and the other thing with the “hero” state trooper that was shot by one of his own guys I’m wondering if people should still have faith in the competancy of our state police.
I think we can all agree that high speed pursuits are dangerous. If that’s the case, allowing the police to take any means they need to end it as quickly as possible is a good ruling.
I have a lot of doubt in most police officer’s real high speed driving skill, and I think they’re probably close to as dangerous as the guy that’s fleeing. So if that’s the case, do the PIT as soon as it can be done without endangering innocent bystanders. If it means the fleeing vehicle may end up going off into some trees, or a cliff, so be it. It’s about reducing the risk to INNOCENT people as quickly as possible, not about trying to minimize the risk to the guy putting everyone at risk.
Look at it this way… lets say the ruling went the other way. Police would then have two options.
Abandon the pursuit.
Continue pursuit until the fleeing vehicle crashes.
In the first case most agencies already have policies in place to abandon pursuits if the risk is too high and they feel backing off will lower the risk. In some cases that simply isn’t an option though.
So in the cases where they have to pursue, innocent drivers would be at much more risk if officers were not allowed to make aggresive moves to end the chase.
In the first case most agencies already have policies in place to abandon pursuits if the risk is too high and they feel backing off will lower the risk. In some cases that simply isn’t an option though.
[/quote]
This is the part where they tend to fail more than they succeed. I have no problems empowering them to get the bad guy. But don’t start putting people in jail when you are the reckless one. Obviously each situation is different, but I’ve been seeing a trend where the LEOs are the ones making worse decisions than the people they are “chasing”.
IMO it sucks he is paralyzed now, but he should have thought about the consequences to his actions… and no i dont feel bad at all for him
[/quote]
IMO it doesnt suck he’s paralyzed…it’s exactly what that fucktard needed…people that dumb don’t learn a thing from jail time…they just get more pissed off, learn from other criminals, and when they get out, are angry and more proficient at being a menace to society