The Supreme Court is currently considering placing constitutional limits on police use of deadly force to stop fleeing suspects. The courts define deadly force as “creating a substantial risk of death or serious injury”.
According to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, “The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that 314 people were killed during pursuits in 1998. Of this total, two were police officers and 198 were individuals being chased. The remaining 114 were either occupants of unrelated vehicles or pedestrians. The total was higher in each of the four previous years.”
Because there is not a mandatory reporting system, the attempts by NHTSA to track pursuit fatalities and results account for only one-half of the actual data is collected. By pulling the 5-year totals to include 100 percent reporting, calculations would reflect an average of 375 deaths per year.
The FBI report states that one person dies every day as a result of a police pursuit and that most police pursuits involve a stop for a traffic violation. “Innocent third parties who just happen to be in the way constitute 42 percent of persons killed or injured in police pursuits. Further, one out of every 100 high-speed pursuits results in a fatality.”
Many agree that high-speed chases are dangerous and any fatality is a tragic, but if law enforcement is not allowed to protect the innocent, will a greater numbers suffer? One solution by the FBI suggests a policy be in place that would require police officers to have extensive training in “pursuit-driving techniques”. In this course police officers would learn “when” as well as “how” to pursue. Currently, police officers are only trained to know “how” to pursue.
A comprehensive study conducted by the FBI concluded that of 146 jailed suspects who had been involved as drivers in high-speed chases, more than 70 percent said they would have slowed down if the police had terminated the pursuit or even backed off, while 64 percent believed they would not be caught. FBI officials say, “Clearly, the police must be concerned with public safety during pursuits because the suspects are not.”
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Go on that the money and run
On the night of March 29, 2001, Victor Harris was driving 73 mph in a 55 mph zone when he passed a Coweta County police officer. The officer started pursuing Harris and flashing his lights at him, but Harris refused to stop.
Harris drove at speeds reaching 90 mph, ran several red lights and crossed over double yellow traffic lines to pass other drivers during the pursuit.
When Harris was about to cross into Fayette County, another officer, Timothy Scott, heard about the chase on his dispatch radio and decided to join the pursuit. After Harris turned onto a highway, Scott became the lead vehicle in the chase. Scott then decided to call his supervisor, Sergeant Mark Fenninger, for permission to perform a Precision Invention Technique – PIT – maneuver on Harris’s car. After listening to his request, Scott’s supervisor then granted him permission for a PIT maneuver. Scott waited until he thought no other motorists were in the area then ran his front bumper into Harris’s car.
Harris, who was not wearing a seatbelt, then lost control of his car and crashed off the roadway, becoming paralyzed from the neck down. But aside from Harris, No one else was hurt in the police chase.
Harris a 19 year old that evaded the police at speeds up to 90 mph is suing them for doing their job and stopping him. Spike Helmick, commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, argues that the law is clear: It's unlawful to flee. "The other side always suggests maybe it's not worth the pursuit," he says. "But if you no longer pursue people, what do you think your bank robbers and auto thieves are going to do?" They are going to run.
I do not disagree that police chases are dangerous; 350 people die each year from them, but one must remember that 230 of these deaths are of fleeing suspects. I do think it is terrible that this many people have to die in these situations, but think of the thousands that would die if these criminals where not brought to justice. Statistics show that 87 percent of traffic violators that evade the police are guilty of more that the crime they are being chased for. If this case rules in favor of Harris, all of these people doing a lot more that just speeding are going to be free to run.This case has the bearings of the McDonald’s case, when the older lady sued for the coffee being hot and burning her. Americans do not have the constitutional freedom to do whatever they want, they have to use common sense and obey the law. When confronted with Harris’s lawyer bring up the fact that Harris used his turning signals during the chase, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “That’s like the strangler who observes the no-smoking sign.”
Harris drove at speeds reaching 90 mph, ran several red lights and crossed over double yellow traffic lines to pass other drivers during the pursuit.
When Harris was about to cross into Fayette County, another officer, Timothy Scott, heard about the chase on his dispatch radio and decided to join the pursuit. After Harris turned onto a highway, Scott became the lead vehicle in the chase. Scott then decided to call his supervisor, Sergeant Mark Fenninger, for permission to perform a Precision Invention Technique – PIT – maneuver on Harris’s car. After listening to his request, Scott’s supervisor then granted him permission for a PIT maneuver. Scott waited until he thought no other motorists were in the area then ran his front bumper into Harris’s car.
Harris, who was not wearing a seatbelt, then lost control of his car and crashed off the roadway, becoming paralyzed from the neck down. But aside from Harris, No one else was hurt in the police chase.
Harris a 19 year old that evaded the police at speeds up to 90 mph is suing them for doing their job and stopping him. Spike Helmick, commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, argues that the law is clear: It's unlawful to flee. "The other side always suggests maybe it's not worth the pursuit," he says. "But if you no longer pursue people, what do you think your bank robbers and auto thieves are going to do?" They are going to run.
I do not disagree that police chases are dangerous; 350 people die each year from them, but one must remember that 230 of these deaths are of fleeing suspects. I do think it is terrible that this many people have to die in these situations, but think of the thousands that would die if these criminals where not brought to justice. Statistics show that 87 percent of traffic violators that evade the police are guilty of more that the crime they are being chased for. If this case rules in favor of Harris, all of these people doing a lot more that just speeding are going to be free to run.This case has the bearings of the McDonald’s case, when the older lady sued for the coffee being hot and burning her. Americans do not have the constitutional freedom to do whatever they want, they have to use common sense and obey the law. When confronted with Harris’s lawyer bring up the fact that Harris used his turning signals during the chase, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “That’s like the strangler who observes the no-smoking sign.”
Serve and Protect, but if they try to get away it's best to let them
This is the most ignorant thing I have heard since, McDonald’s got sued for having hot coffee. This teenager suing the police is just another example of ignorance being rewarded. When is this country going to realize that it is not okay to be an idiot? I think that it is time that we take natural selection in to our own hands and slowly breed the stupid out of country.
I do not care if this teen driver was “scared” as his lawyer put it, because I know I was nervous and a little bit scared the first time I ever got pulled over and running from the cops never once entered my mind. His lawyers are also claiming that the police used excessive force, but this is how I would imagine the cop saw this “scared” kid. (Hypothetical Situation) Pull someone over for a routine traffic violation and he starts to run, my first thought is that he is up to something more, and now he is driving in both lanes at speeds excess of 80 miles per hour, this is too dangerous I have to stop it. To me it makes perfect since that this was the course of action. Statistics show that more than 350 people die every year from high-speed pursuits and in 230 of those cases it is the fleeing suspect. That should tell you something, “Don’t run from the cops!” Yes high-speed pursuits are dangerous, but it is not logical to say that police should simply allow criminals trying to escape to simply do so. If police are not allowed to pursue suspected criminals then how are they supposed to “serve and protect?”
I do not care if this teen driver was “scared” as his lawyer put it, because I know I was nervous and a little bit scared the first time I ever got pulled over and running from the cops never once entered my mind. His lawyers are also claiming that the police used excessive force, but this is how I would imagine the cop saw this “scared” kid. (Hypothetical Situation) Pull someone over for a routine traffic violation and he starts to run, my first thought is that he is up to something more, and now he is driving in both lanes at speeds excess of 80 miles per hour, this is too dangerous I have to stop it. To me it makes perfect since that this was the course of action. Statistics show that more than 350 people die every year from high-speed pursuits and in 230 of those cases it is the fleeing suspect. That should tell you something, “Don’t run from the cops!” Yes high-speed pursuits are dangerous, but it is not logical to say that police should simply allow criminals trying to escape to simply do so. If police are not allowed to pursue suspected criminals then how are they supposed to “serve and protect?”
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Keep It Simple Stupid
You know the sick feeling... that burning sensation on the back of your neck as the police officer behind you hits his blue lights to pull you over coupled with the knots in your stomach thinking about the ticket he or she is probably about to write you. Chances of you getting away if you decide to run are slim to none, so do you even risk it?
350 people die each year in high speed police chases and the sad fact is that most of those 350 end up being innocent bystanders who had absolutely nothing to do with the person who decided to run and the cops who saw fit to make a big deal out of nothing. What do the police expect of a suspect who decides to take off? That seeing 8 cars behind him or her will make them smarten up and pull over now? Once the decision is made to run, it's set in stone more times than not for the fleeing suspect. It's time that police forces nationwide start to seek alternative methods to pursuing a suspect who decides to flee.
Most cars have tags. Those tags are linked to a certain address and name (unless the car is stolen.) Why can the cops not just take down the tag of the person who is fleeing, back off, and then go file a report? I know, I know...easier said than done, but I would hope that cops generally have good enough vision to get down a tag number even from a safe distance of a speeding suspect. Then the police can go to this person's house and wait on them. If they don't show up, find out where they work and get them there the next day. In the rare case of a suspect who just murdered someone or robbed a bank, I do believe that the police should have the right to follow the suspect but keep their distance and not attempt to wreck the person. We have this neat invention called a spike strip. It will disable a vehicle's tires in an instant. Use that instead of the famed PIT manuever and, VOILA!, flat-tired suspect now driving on 4 metal wheels. I promise you that sucker isn't going anywhere too fast or too soon.
People are just so complacent now that they'd rather try some massive idea (like a constitutional amendment) when there are smarter and smaller methods to employ that work just as well if not better. Lets save constitutional amendments for something much more important, like immigration or limiting the powers of a President in war time....and lets save the lives of innocent men, women and children by employing different tactics when it comes to high-speed chases.
350 people die each year in high speed police chases and the sad fact is that most of those 350 end up being innocent bystanders who had absolutely nothing to do with the person who decided to run and the cops who saw fit to make a big deal out of nothing. What do the police expect of a suspect who decides to take off? That seeing 8 cars behind him or her will make them smarten up and pull over now? Once the decision is made to run, it's set in stone more times than not for the fleeing suspect. It's time that police forces nationwide start to seek alternative methods to pursuing a suspect who decides to flee.
Most cars have tags. Those tags are linked to a certain address and name (unless the car is stolen.) Why can the cops not just take down the tag of the person who is fleeing, back off, and then go file a report? I know, I know...easier said than done, but I would hope that cops generally have good enough vision to get down a tag number even from a safe distance of a speeding suspect. Then the police can go to this person's house and wait on them. If they don't show up, find out where they work and get them there the next day. In the rare case of a suspect who just murdered someone or robbed a bank, I do believe that the police should have the right to follow the suspect but keep their distance and not attempt to wreck the person. We have this neat invention called a spike strip. It will disable a vehicle's tires in an instant. Use that instead of the famed PIT manuever and, VOILA!, flat-tired suspect now driving on 4 metal wheels. I promise you that sucker isn't going anywhere too fast or too soon.
People are just so complacent now that they'd rather try some massive idea (like a constitutional amendment) when there are smarter and smaller methods to employ that work just as well if not better. Lets save constitutional amendments for something much more important, like immigration or limiting the powers of a President in war time....and lets save the lives of innocent men, women and children by employing different tactics when it comes to high-speed chases.
I Guess We Just Don't Need Driving Laws
If the Supreme Court rules against the officer in this case, we might as well tell every criminal "Gentlemen Start Your Engines." I understand that over 350 people die each year because of accidents that occur from high speed chases. But I also know how many more people will die if the police are not allowed to chase after criminals. Lets say one person speeds, the cop flashes their lights at the person telling them to pull over, this person decides that they don't have to pull over because the cop cannot chase them at high speeds. They then go faster speeding away from the cops and lose control of their vehicle crashing into a tree killing them. If they feared the cop chasing them they might have pulled over in the first place and paid their $100 fine, but because the cop cannot chase them they wind up dead. Some times you just have to take risks to save lives, and the police should not be punished for doing so. Letting people run from the law will do no good in trying to combat crime. It will only hinder the police in doing their jobs. This entire debate just seems silly to me, why are we even discussing this? The police have got to be able to do their jobs, and if the Supreme Court takes that away from them then why even have law enforcement?
Stop in the name of the law!
Stop, in the name of the law! This common catchphrase soon may have no more validity. Police are now being put to the test. A case is going before the Supreme Court that will determine what kinds of force there are allowed to uses on evading cars. Now, police are able to bump cars in high speed chases. This could all change. Victor Harris, 19, was paralyzed in a crash caused by a police officer bumping his car in pursuit. The family decided to sue the local police. The case is now going before the Supreme Court. I believe that police should be able to use force to stop an evader of the law. If a person is speeding in a car away from police, they are putting other citizens in danger. Police should be able to use any means necessary to stop them. Many people say they have constitutional rights protecting them against such acts. I think that the minute a person breaks the law, their rights should be revoked. If a person evades the police they should be held responsible for their actions. This new law would essentially say, “If you drive away fast enough, the cops can’t get you.” What kind of country are we living in that lets criminals have a run away free clause? I think that the police should be able to keep their right to stop evaders of the law. It is their job after all.
In The Pursuit of Protection
Imagine you are speeding down the road going 75 mph in a 55 mph zone. All of a sudden you see blue lights in your rear view mirror. What do you do? Do you slow your car and pull over; or do you increase your speed to 85 and continue down the road?
Now imagine you are a police officer in pursuit of a fleeing suspect. You radio for permission to continue the pursuit and to end the chase. Instead of receiving this permission you are told to break the pursuit, to let them go.
The Supreme Court is hearing evidence and ruling this week on the case of a 19 year-old who made the decision to run. Victor Harris is now a quadriplegic after Deputy Sheriff Timothy Scott rammed into his car in order to stop the pursuit.
The argument from Harris’ lawyers is that Scott used excessive and deadly force against an offender who posed no immediate threat to the public. However, Harris was recorded at times running between 80 and 90 mph, and was recorded changing lanes over a double yellow line if any cars were in his way. Personally, that sounds like a threat to me.
The prospect of laws defining “necessary” force concerns me. This concerns me because law, for the most part, is left open to interpretation. In a split second decision, an officer is likely to shy away from the choice that could find him facing a judge. This means many criminals would begin to get away simply because they drove faster and more dangerously.
What this causes is a situation in which criminals running from the police can see a light at the end of the tunnel. If they can run a little faster, or drive a little more reckless, the police will quit pursuing them. I believe that mentality in a criminal is far more dangerous than the current situation we have, in which most of the time it is the fleeing driver who is injured.
What of the rights of the criminal, a person may ask. It occurs to me that most of the fleeing drivers every year are adults, capable of making their own decisions. If they decide to flee, they are putting their own life at risk, as well as the life of many others. My question is: What of the rights of the police and innocent bystanders?
Innocent drivers and pedestrians deserve to be protected from reckless and dangerous drivers; letting criminals go if they try hard enough is not the way to achieve this protection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)