U.S. Supreme Court OK's High Speed Police Chases

Let's not mince words here. Your average American loves watching a good ol' red blooded police chase. As entertaining as they are, you've really got to wonder if discretion is the better part of valor when it comes to running Johnny Perp to ground. In " Scott v. Harris," the U.S. Supreme Court didn't seem to think so. The Justices watched this video of police chasing of a 19-year-old man who refused to pull over after being caught speeding. In what Justice Scalia described as, "The scariest chase I ever saw since 'The French Connection'," the teenager led police on a 10-mile plunge down a two-lane highway at night. A police officer ended the chase by ramming the back of the teenager's car at 90 mph, sending the car flying down an embankment, rendering the fleeing teenager quadriplegic. The Court held that the officer's use of deadly force to stop the fleeing speeder (clocked doing 73 in a 55 mph zone) was reasonable– despite the option of calling off the pursuit and tracking down the driver by his license plate. The Court states, "After watching the video, no jury could find the Police Officer's use of force unreasonable." What say you?

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 53 comments
  • TexasAg03 TexasAg03 on Feb 01, 2008
    The big difference is that almost everyone uses drugs in one form or another, and very few think that what they’re doing is wrong because they’re not directly hurting anyone else by doing it. I assume you mean illegal drugs. What is the source of your data? What do you mean by "almost everyone"? None of my friends use illegal drugs in any way. I question your assertion that "almost everyone" does it. Also, just because something does not "directly hurt anyone else" doesn't mean it's okay to do. A government can’t just define a way of thinking and living your own life as wrong without justification. Only the simplest of minds take their moral code directly from the government. I agree that one's morals shouldn't come from the governement, but all laws are based on some moral code. Save the jails for real criminals; you know, the ones who actually harm others. The problem with that is that different people have different definitions for "harm". I happen to agree that the punishments meted out for simple drug possession (especially marijuana) are often too severe, but I don't know where the cutoff is. What drugs are okay?

  • Kevin Kevin on Feb 01, 2008

    Why damage a cop-car bumper when you can just shoot the guy?

  • on Feb 01, 2008
    How would you feel if you found out your wife was killed today because the cops decided it was oh so important to pursue a drug abusing crackhead that simply did want to spend a night in jail and not get high. I'd want to kill the crack abusing drug head for committing first degree murder, because that is what he did. good try, but you'll have to create a bigger weaker strawman argument next time.

  • on Feb 01, 2008
    The big difference is that almost everyone uses drugs in one form or another, and very few think that what they’re doing is wrong because they’re not directly hurting anyone else by doing it. A government can’t just define a way of thinking and living your own life as wrong without justification. Only the simplest of minds take their moral code directly from the government. Save the jails for real criminals; you know, the ones who actually harm others. You mean like the mother who pimps out her teen and preteen daughters for money for her next fix? You mean like the lady high on marijuana who lets her baby daughter burn to death on a heating grate? Do you mean the pusher who offers your friend a good time in the form of a free line of coke; then you get to watch your friend spiral downward into theft, prostitution, and the gutter as she uses every drug under the sun? You're right. Drugs don't harm anybody but the ones taking them, and probably not even then. Afterall, Marijuana and LSD both provide a more enlightened view of the world, right?

Next