A victory for common sense...

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by California_Tanker, May 1, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-1631

    This is the opinion of the US Supreme Court in a case they decided yesterday.

    In a nutshell, some chap (Harris) is doing 73 in a 55 zone, and the local constabulary decides to pull him over for speeding. In response to seeing the flashing blue and red lights in his mirror, he instead takes off, starting a pursuit.

    About ten miles later, the cops (Scott) finally decide to knock him off the road. The ensuing crash leaves the speeder a quadraplegic. He sues the police, citing excessive use of force and violation of his 4th Ammendment rights.
    Police, on the other hand, claim that they knocked him off the road as a matter of public safety, before he ploughed into some family coming home from the cinema or some such.

    Both the district court and the court of appeals held that the severity of the crime for which he was being pulled over (speeding) did not warrant the use of potentially lethal force in his capture, and the cops should have either just let him go, or continue on until he stopped on his own, especially given their opinion that really, the chase wasn't all that dangerous.

    Supreme court, in an 8-1 reversal decides otherwise. The judgement is easy to read, and vaguely amusing.

    (The Court website has the full video available as an rmvb (real media) flie, the URL is in a footnote)

    From the dissenting judge.
    Final decision:
    I mean, really. How hard can it be? If you don't like to run the risk of serious injury or death, don't try to escape from cops by driving really quickly on public roads.

  2. Now that does seem like a sensible decision for once.

    PC Bde bugger off.
  3. Compare this with the recent decision of one of our police forces not to pursue/follow someone on a stolen motorbike if the rider isn't wearing a helmet.

    It's good to know that somewhere at least there are judges willing to apply common sense.
  4. So the assclown isn't able to repeat his offence thanks to the measures taken by the police... sounds like a proper outcome to me. Just glad it was only the suspect who was injured, far too often such individuals kill decent folks and walk away with nary a scratch.
  5. How on earth could the lower court think that? If it weren't for the invention of the police, they could have had more quadraplegics in front of them to watch the man who cause their injuries go to jail. Agree with the sarcasm in the last judge's summing up, deserves it.
    Idiots, I wouldn't have thought that I'd hear such crap decision from a US court.