Cops turn left in front of fleeing rider to stop him... Holy cow.

[russell_bynum]

Isn't that what I've been advocating all along?

 

[David]

Yes, but you want cops to be God.

[ghaverkamp]

For example, with all of the chases that I've seen televised, I'd be perfectly OK with police ramming the perp (or shooting them, or dropping precision-guided tactical nukes on them...whatever works) because it is obvious (even to a lawyer) that they're fully aware they're being chased.

 

The problem with being "perfectly OK" with that is that it means you're perfectly okay with the government acting in violation of the Constitution. If that's okay in this instance, is it okay if they come take all the guns? Tell you what you can and can't say? Can and can't read?

 

It's the "I'm not a crook so I don't care if the crooks' rights are violated" attitude, and it runs rampant. We don't care if Americans are locked up at Guantanamo, because unlike us, they're Muslims and they may have supported terrorism. Not locking them up might pose a danger down the road. Someday. Maybe. We should probably lock up all Muslims. Or run them over.

 

Eric says it's about accountability, and I agree. People should be accountable for their actions. That goes for the government actors, as well. When we don't push accountability, we end up with signing statements, warrantless wiretaps (not just by the NSA, but also through National Security Letters targeted at non-national security targets), undeclared wars, etc. It's easy to say it's just not a right you care about. But someday, it will be.

[Agent_Orange]

And that is the reason that when asked to try out for LEO after coming home from my third tour in Nam that I ended up as a firefighter. Go figure.

[MattS]

Yeah, well, that ain't the case. There are two examples we've cited here.

For clarification, if I'm driving along and don't notice that the police are seeking my attention, then doesn't that indicate only that perhaps my head is up my ass.

 

Because it happened to people here doesn't mean that they were right; only that they need to work on their situational awareness.

[russell_bynum]

Yes, but you want cops to be God.

 

I just want people to effin' stop when the red and blues come on. When the police response is "well...we're not allowed to pursue, so we'll just get really mad as you speed away", then people are going to run. When Run=high probability of death, that problem will go away.

[Whip]

Yeah, well, that ain't the case. There are two examples we've cited here.

For clarification, if I'm driving along and don't notice that the police are seeking my attention, then doesn't that indicate only that perhaps my head is up my ass.

 

Because it happened to people here doesn't mean that they were right; only that they need to work on their situational awareness.

 

Could happen to anyone....

 

http://bmwsporttouring.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=953520&page=0&vc=1

 

[ghaverkamp]

For clarification, if I'm driving along and don't notice that the police are seeking my attention, then doesn't that indicate only that perhaps my head is up my ass.

 

Because it happened to people here doesn't mean that they were right; only that they need to work on their situational awareness.

 

So, because someone lacks situational awareness, it should be acceptable to run them down? That's Russell's point-of-view. If I'd intended to be absolved of having ever ridden without being fully aware of my surroundings I probably would have saved it for a different thread.

 

In my case, fortunately, the deputy was very reasonable. It was clear to him that I didn't see him. I got off with a warning, in fact. Should I have seen him? I guess. I got mirror extenders (my problem wasn't uncommon) so I could see past my gut-widened elbows more readily.

[Lawman]

That is not what I saw Eric. The officer's car was in motion and he swerved to match the the biker's actions. He deliberately hit the biker head on. It was a routine traffic stop and the biker decided to evade. Only here would that be considered a capital offense. The officer decided that he was going to "show" this punk, who was in charge. The officer is up on attempted murder charges..as he should be. Joe public is now going to show the officer who really is in charge. There was no excuse for what he did.

 

I looked and was unable to find anything about this officer being charged with anything..Can you substantiate this claim?

[russell_bynum]

So, because someone lacks situational awareness, it should be acceptable to run them down? That's Russell's point-of-view.

 

Nice try...I explicitly said that there's a difference between someone who hasn't noticed they're being chased and someone who's intentionally running.

[ericfoerster]

OK...now lets jump all the way over to the other side of this fight:

 

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8248892

 

This trooper was shot and killed after only a short 1 mile chase.

So, we should let everyone get away and not have any rules, right?

 

Extreme points of view here.

 

Maybe we could get those that are trying to run show some kind of signal. Those that are just DWHUA we just let them roll on down the road and kill someone outside our jurisdiction.

[ghaverkamp]

So, because someone lacks situational awareness, it should be acceptable to run them down? That's Russell's point-of-view.

 

Nice try...I explicitly said that there's a difference between someone who hasn't noticed they're being chased and someone who's intentionally running.

 

Which is the equivalent of the "just let the innocent have rights" position.

[russell_bynum]

So, because someone lacks situational awareness, it should be acceptable to run them down? That's Russell's point-of-view.

 

Nice try...I explicitly said that there's a difference between someone who hasn't noticed they're being chased and someone who's intentionally running.

 

Which is the equivalent of the "just let the innocent have rights" position.

 

Pretty much.

 

IMO (and I know this isn't the popular opinion, and I'm sure there's plenty of case law that doesn't agree...this is just my "if I were King of the World" opinion), when you run, you are to be presumed not innocent. And if you run when a cop tries to pull you over for rolling through a stop sign or some other "minor" offense, then it must be assumed that you have something much bigger that you're trying to hide.

[Stir]

 

Because it happened to people here doesn't mean that they were right; only that they need to work on their situational awareness.

 

Could happen to anyone....

 

http://bmwsporttouring.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=953520&page=0&vc=1

 

 

Given that, how would you have felt if one of the other five cars decided to mow you down?

[Stir]

So, because someone lacks situational awareness, it should be acceptable to run them down? That's Russell's point-of-view.

 

Nice try...I explicitly said that there's a difference between someone who hasn't noticed they're being chased and someone who's intentionally running.

 

So which party wears the sign that indicates which is which? There is a new business idea. You know that place that sells, "Live is good" T-shirts? Some one here should market, "Don't shoot or mow me down....bro...I can't see you." line of motorcycle jackets.

[russell_bynum]

So, because someone lacks situational awareness, it should be acceptable to run them down? That's Russell's point-of-view.

 

Nice try...I explicitly said that there's a difference between someone who hasn't noticed they're being chased and someone who's intentionally running.

 

So which party wears the sign that indicates which is which? There is a new business idea. You know that place that sells, "Live is good" T-shirts? Some one here should market, "Don't shoot or mow me down....bro...I can't see you." line of motorcycle jackets.

 

Puhleeze.

 

You live in SoCal, so I know you've seen at least one of the zillion chases that get televised. Has there ever been any doubt in your mind that the runner knew he/she was being chased?

[ghaverkamp]

Pretty much.

 

May you have all the rights you wish for others.

 

The problem with such a point of view -- beyond that it ignores the rule of law under the guise of honoring the rule of law -- is that the only meaningful way to determine guilt or lack of guilt is to ensure that the process follows the rules.

 

All sorts of criminal procedure doctrines exist because of a history rife with police abuse of constitutional safeguards. Have police ignored and violated the Constitution because they're evil? Because they're stupid? Because they hate their fellow man? No, of course not. They've done it because they've been trying to fight crime and capture criminals. Basically, they've done it while trying to do their jobs. They've gotten overzealous when they've become certain that someone has committed a crime. So, they have conducted illegal searches, arrested people illegally, bullied weak people until they confessed out of desperation.

 

If we don't protect the rights of those we "presume" guilty, we won't know who is guilty. We'll have people who are guilty by presumption.

[motorman587]

How can you say the officer "caused" the head on crash?? The person refusing to stop caused the crash. The officer was blocking the inside lane, which if you were watching the video pause it a couple of times, had enough time to stop or swerve. The officer did not block the whole lane and there was an "out" if the rider choose so. So the cause of this crash is solely the rider, who BTW was operatiing his motor vehicle in reckless mannor.

 

That is not what I saw Eric. The officer's car was in motion and he swerved to match the the biker's actions. He deliberately hit the biker head on. It was a routine traffic stop and the biker decided to evade. Only here would that be considered a capital offense. The officer decided that he was going to "show" this punk, who was in charge. The officer is up on attempted murder charges..as he should be. Joe public is now going to show the officer who really is in charge. There was no excuse for what he did.

 

I respectfully disagree......... What is the difference if I am flagging a car over?? I step out in traffic etc.....to stop the speeding car, of course, I leave an "out" for the guy if he refuses to flee. Like I saw in the video.

[russell_bynum]

If we don't protect the rights of those we "presume" guilty, we won't know who is guilty. We'll have people who are guilty by presumption.

 

No presumption necessary. If you run, you're guilty...of running.

 

Once the officer has you under his/her control, then things can get civilized again.

[Stir]

I looked and was unable to find anything about this officer being charged with anything..Can you substantiate this claim?

 

South Carolina released the dash videos when it became known that the officers were running people down with their cars. The video in the first post is from that collection.

 

Here is just one of MANY news stories on this subject. I redid the search and I'm not able to find the first article that I read.

 

http://politisite.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/south-carolina-police-brutality-and-race-new-video/

[Stir]

If we don't protect the rights of those we "presume" guilty, we won't know who is guilty. We'll have people who are guilty by presumption.

 

No presumption necessary. If you run, you're guilty...of running.

 

Once the officer has you under his/her control, then things can get civilized again.

 

I think that running is generally a misdemeanor. I'm pretty certain we don't punish misdemeanor's with death...except in South Carolina.

[Stir]

OK...now lets jump all the way over to the other side of this fight:

 

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8248892

 

This trooper was shot and killed after only a short 1 mile chase.

So, we should let everyone get away and not have any rules, right?

 

Extreme points of view here.

 

Maybe we could get those that are trying to run show some kind of signal. Those that are just DWHUA we just let them roll on down the road and kill someone outside our jurisdiction.

 

What you posted is true. But as David pointed out earlier, people choose to be police officers and are well aware of the risks. Domestic disputes are one call that one of my friend's dreaded. But that is part of the job. Soldiers are dying Iraq, but we bring them up on trial when they indiscriminately shoot civilians. They don't have the leeway to help themselves to the population and abuse them because they are risking their lives for that population.

[ghaverkamp]

If we don't protect the rights of those we "presume" guilty, we won't know who is guilty. We'll have people who are guilty by presumption.

 

No presumption necessary. If you run, you're guilty...of running.

 

You're presuming that they're running.

 

Once the officer has you under his/her control, then things can get civilized again.

 

After the cop has presumed that someone is running -- based on your earlier posts, even if the person is on foot. What a convenient way for the police to run over anyone they want. To arrest anyone they want.

 

Even better, watch the Cops episodes in Pittsburgh, where they dress like, for lack of a better words, thugs. Sure, they scream that they're cops while running at people with their long hair, dirty-looking t-shirts, and jeans, but what person in their right mind wants to hang around and find out?

[Lawman]

I looked and was unable to find anything about this officer being charged with anything..Can you substantiate this claim?

 

South Carolina released the dash videos when it became known that the officers were running people down with their cars. The video in the first post is from that collection.

 

Here is just one of MANY news stories on this subject. I redid the search and I'm not able to find the first article that I read.

 

http://politisite.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/south-carolina-police-brutality-and-race-new-video/

 

That's very good to know..I do not believe the officer who is the subject of this video will be charged with anything...I certainly hope not anyway..

[Twisties]

I haven't read the thread, just saw the video, so this is my initial reaction: Unless there is evidence that the rider was an immediate danger to the community (armed and dangerous type), cop belongs on trial for attempted murder.

[russell_bynum]

If we don't protect the rights of those we "presume" guilty, we won't know who is guilty. We'll have people who are guilty by presumption.

 

No presumption necessary. If you run, you're guilty...of running.

 

Once the officer has you under his/her control, then things can get civilized again.

 

I think that running is generally a misdemeanor. I'm pretty certain we don't punish misdemeanor's with death...except in South Carolina.

 

I'd be in favor of changing that.

[russell_bynum]

You're presuming that they're running.

 

I'm also presuming you like arguing.

 

 

 

After the cop has presumed that someone is running -- based on your earlier posts, even if the person is on foot.

 

The word "Duh" comes to mind.

 

 

What a convenient way for the police to run over anyone they want. To arrest anyone they want.

 

Abuse of power must be dealt with swiftly and with severe penalties.

 

 

Even better, watch the Cops episodes in Pittsburgh, where they dress like, for lack of a better words, thugs. Sure, they scream that they're cops while running at people with their long hair, dirty-looking t-shirts, and jeans, but what person in their right mind wants to hang around and find out?

 

 

That's awesome. So...just because the cop "looks scary" to me, I'm allowed to run and it's OK. Sweet!!!

[ericfoerster]

They don't have the leeway to help themselves to the population and abuse them because they are risking their lives for that population.

 

 

Did someone say that?

I'm saying the fleeing felon is a danger by the act of fleeing.

In Texas it is a felony to flee using a vehicle.

 

38.04. EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION. (a) A person

commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows

is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor,

except that the offense is:

(1) a state jail felony if the actor uses a vehicle

while the actor is in flight and the actor has not been previously

convicted under this section;

(2) a felony of the third degree if:

(A) the actor uses a vehicle while the actor is in

flight and the actor has been previously convicted under this

section; or

(B) another suffers serious bodily injury as a

direct result of an attempt by the officer from whom the actor is

fleeing to apprehend the actor while the actor is in flight; or

(3) a felony of the second degree if another suffers

death as a direct result of an attempt by the officer from whom the

actor is fleeing to apprehend the actor while the actor is in

flight.

 

 

 

Thank God that the granola and weed hasn't infected our legislature, yet.

[Whip]

 

Because it happened to people here doesn't mean that they were right; only that they need to work on their situational awareness.

 

Could happen to anyone....

 

http://bmwsporttouring.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=953520&page=0&vc=1

 

 

Given that, how would you have felt if one of the other five cars decided to mow you down?

 

 

 

That would really suck......since I was sitting at a red light when "they got me".....

 

 

 

 

 

 

BTW...I love it when my two favorite lawman are on the same side of an issue......it makes me proud to me a Texan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Agent_Orange]

[Lawman]

[ghaverkamp]

I'm also presuming you like arguing.

 

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I didn't view it as arguing. I've not posted the content that seemed to go there.

 

However, whatever we call it, if we could steer it from the Fourth to the First Amendment, that would be great. I have a First Amendment Law final on Tuesday and I could use some practice.

[lawnchairboy]

I think you are OK on the free speech part...

 

[Stir]

BTW...I love it when my two favorite lawman are on the same side of an issue......it makes me proud to me a Texan.

 

 

 

Tell me about it. I'm curled up in my wife's lap in the fetal position. smiller and I agree on something... The colors in my world just seem a little off...

[Stir]

I'm also presuming you like arguing.

 

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I didn't view it as arguing. I've not posted the content that seemed to go there.

 

However, whatever we call it, if we could steer it from the Fourth to the First Amendment, that would be great. I have a First Amendment Law final on Tuesday and I could use some practice.

 

When Russell mows me down for "fleeing" from him and his wild look, I'd be proud to have you represent my...fourth amendment rights.

[ghaverkamp]

When Russell mows me down for "fleeing" from him and his wild look ...

 

We were on the right path.

 

I was thinking more like: You are riding your motorcycle with a banner streaming behind it reading, "Nuke Crawford". Russell mows you down with his decrepit Bimmer for what he claims was running from his authority to impose a citizen's arrest for riding without your helmet properly buckled. As he approaches you on the ground, you start swearing like a banshee. Russell informs you that if you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, he won't follow through with the arrest. Russell then takes you to the police station, where, once inside, you unfurl your banner and start screaming its message at the top of your lungs to all inside. Discuss.

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

The only thing that worries me about LEO's, is that they are human. With the information I have, it looks to me like that one made a really poor choice.

[Lawman]

The only thing that worries me about LEO's, is that they are human. With the information I have, it looks to me like that one made a really poor choice.

 

So I'm still waiting for just one of those who say the officer made the wrong choice to tell us what choice he should have made..

[ghaverkamp]

So I'm still waiting for just one of those who say the officer made the wrong choice to tell us what choice he should have made..

 

He should have chosen not to turn into the path of the oncoming motorist.

[Silver Surfer/AKAButters]

 

He should have chosen not to turn into the path of the oncoming motorist.

 

Yeah! What he said.

 

This is'nt personal.

[russell_bynum]

I'm also presuming you like arguing.

 

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I didn't view it as arguing. I've not posted the content that seemed to go there.

 

However, whatever we call it, if we could steer it from the Fourth to the First Amendment, that would be great. I have a First Amendment Law final on Tuesday and I could use some practice.

 

When Russell mows me down for "fleeing" from him and his wild look, I'd be proud to have you represent my...fourth amendment rights.

 

Don't be silly...with that new GT of yours, I'd never catch up with you enough to mow you down.

[ghaverkamp]

Don't be silly...with that new GT of yours, I'd never catch up with you enough to mow you down.

 

That's how you get him. You cut across two lanes of traffic while he's coming at you.

[russell_bynum]

Don't be silly...with that new GT of yours, I'd never catch up with you enough to mow you down.

 

That's how you get him. You cut across two lanes of traffic while he's coming at you.

 

Ah. Good point.

 

You're toast, Simpson.

[Lawman]

So I'm still waiting for just one of those who say the officer made the wrong choice to tell us what choice he should have made..

 

He should have chosen not to turn into the path of the oncoming motorist.

 

So you'd rather seen him chased until he t-bones another car, crashes some other way or just hope he runs out of gas instead being taken down under some control at a location involving no other motorists and in such a manner that no one is hurt.... I think the kid owes the officer a "thank- you" ..This beats burying him...

[ghaverkamp]

So you'd rather seen him chased until he t-bones another car, crashes some other way or just hope he runs out of gas instead being taken down under some control at a location involving no other motorists and in such a manner that no one is hurt.... I think the kid owes the officer a "thank- you" ..This beats burying him...

 

He wasn't taken down under control at all, and he was just as likely to be killed under this scenario as any other.

 

Why the obsession with pursuit? Didn't they have his plate? Is it better to go in pursuit and risk killing both the runner and those innocent bystanders you're so concerned about rather than just accept that some get away?

 

I'd rather see things handled safely. Period.

[Lawman]

So you'd rather seen him chased until he t-bones another car, crashes some other way or just hope he runs out of gas instead being taken down under some control at a location involving no other motorists and in such a manner that no one is hurt.... I think the kid owes the officer a "thank- you" ..This beats burying him...

 

He wasn't taken down under control at all, and he was just as likely to be killed under this scenario as any other.

 

Why the obsession with pursuit? Didn't they have his plate? Is it better to go in pursuit and risk killing both the runner and those innocent bystanders you're so concerned about rather than just accept that some get away?

 

I'd rather see things handled safely. Period.

 

So do I hear you now saying they should have just let him go?

[ghaverkamp]

So do I hear you now saying they just have just let him go?

 

Only if you're saying the cops are incapable of apprehending fleeing motorcyclists without either resorting to unreasonable force against the motorcyclist or killing innocent bystanders.

 

Are you saying that cops are capable of nothing more than ramming and following in imminently dangerous high speed pursuits?

[ericfoerster]

I'd rather see things handled safely. Period.

 

Just letting him continue would not assure a safe ending. It's just as likely he would have killed himself, or caused an accident that hurt others.

 

Pursuits are tough and the legal ramifications are far reaching for all involved.

It will be nice when an electronic disabling device is available to just shut a vehicle off. I've seen the prototypes, just not the finished product.

 

We are always going to have this debate until then.

 

A worthy debate nonetheless

 

I am off to go ram someone

[Lawman]

Are you saying that cops are capable of nothing more than ramming and following in imminently dangerous high speed pursuits?

 

yup....

 

I'm glad you now agree that pursuits are imminently dangerous..

 

I'm now 10-7

[ghaverkamp]

Just letting him continue would not assure a safe ending. It's just as likely he would have killed himself, or caused an accident that hurt others.

 

No, it wouldn't assure a safe ending. However, I don't believe that it's just as likely that a runner, left to his own devices, is as likely to kill himself as others as he is to be killed by a forced head-on collision.

 

I am off to go ram someone

 

From what I gather, that's apparently all y'all are capable of, anyway. Maybe you could find someone to needlessly Tase instead.