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

[russell_bynum]

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?

 

With a bike, what other choice is there? If the criteria is you can't risk the rider's safety in the course of aprehending them, You can't PIT them. You can't use a spike strip. Road block? (Maybe, but they could just turn around.) Basically all you can do is follow them at a polite distance and yell "Stop...or...I'll yell Stop again" on your megaphone.

[ericfoerster]

Maybe you could find someone to needlessly Tase instead.

 

 

Now that is a viable option

I'll hang out the window and zap him off that scooter.

[ghaverkamp]

With a bike, what other choice is there? If the criteria is you can't risk the rider's safety in the course of aprehending them, You can't PIT them. You can't use a spike strip. Road block? (Maybe, but they could just turn around.) Basically all you can do is follow them at a polite distance and yell "Stop...or...I'll yell Stop again" on your megaphone.

 

I didn't say you can't risk the rider's safety. That's radically different from ramming the rider head on. Even a PIT maneuver, to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, is probably going to require that the motorist is a imminent danger to others (that seems to be the theme as I read Scott v. Harris, but they didn't lay down any clear-cut rules.) So, I think the question becomes, so what if you: a) have to follow them forever; b) use some other mechanism; or c) lose the occasional person?

 

a) looks stupid on the news, but that shouldn't really be a concern.

 

b) means that we imbue our cops with the ability to think. Well, we already do that, and as has been mentioned, many are quite successful at this.

 

c) means what? That everyone will run? I doubt that, because of b), for one, and because we still have things like cameras and choppers, etc.

 

In this video, let's say the cop pulled across both lanes further up, rather than continuing straight at the rider. The rider might have gone around. The rider might have crashed into the car. That would have been his own doing, though. Or, the rider might have tried to turn around. Most folks aren't very good at turning around and many aren't good at riding off the road. It seems if he tried to turn around, he might have been corralled off the road.

 

I don't believe I have suggested that no force may be used, but I think it's pretty disingenuous for a bunch of people who know or should know how fragile we are to believe that causing a head-on collision is anything other than deadly force. (I'm not saying you said it wasn't, but you don't seem to care if cops use deadly force to keep someone from fleeing, regardless of why they're fleeing or whether there's any risk to society of the person's flight. Correct?)

[ghaverkamp]

I'll hang out the window and zap him off that scooter.

 

That would make for an interesting video.

[russell_bynum]

) means what? That everyone will run? I doubt that, because of b), for one, and because we still have things like cameras and choppers, etc.

 

Go hand out on some sportbike forums and see what the general attitude about running is. Lots and lots and lots of those guys run because they know there's a very good chance they can get away with it.

 

(I'm not saying you said it wasn't, but you don't seem to care if cops use deadly force to keep someone from fleeing, regardless of why they're fleeing or whether there's any risk to society of the person's flight. Correct?)

 

Correct...that's my opinion.

[ghaverkamp]

Go hand out on some sportbike forums and see what the general attitude about running is. Lots and lots and lots of those guys run because they know there's a very good chance they can get away with it.

 

And I guess my question is, so what?

 

 

So, what is it about flight alone that justifies the use of deadly force to you? Why do you feel it is better to risk killing someone than to let them go, if there's a decent chance they can get away, anyway? Is it because you don't feel comfortable taking the same risk? It's surely not because you believe in the sanctity of the laws they've broken, because many of the laws are laws you're willing to break, too.

[Agent_Orange]

[Lawman]

"So, what is it about flight alone that justifies the use of deadly force to you? Why do you feel it is better to risk killing someone than to let them go"

 

I don't..And if someone flees on foot and is not a fleeing felon and is not putting anyone else in danger I'm not gonna shoot at him..But if someone chooses to drive with total disregard for the safety of others in a motor vehicle on roads shared by the general public and seems hell bent on getting away no matter what the risk to others then my position is that the person fleeing is a substantial threat to others, using a deadly weapon, and that threat should be stopped as soon as is reasonably possible in any way that is using the least amount of force necessary to stop him with priority given to the safety of the public. You've already agreed that a high speed pursuit is "imminently dangerous". This kid was knocked off his bike when the officer placed his car in the bikers path and did it in such a way that no one got hurt and still people are cry foul. My hunch is that had they chased him until he killed himself or someone else you would fault the officers for even chasing..I can hear it now.."Was it really so necessary to chase him to the extent that innocent people get killed? Is it really worth it?" So, no matter what happens you are going to criticize. Running from the cops gets innocent people killed. Those who kill innocent people do have rights but why do you have more concern for the rights of the guilty than the rights of the innocent?

[ghaverkamp]

You've already agreed that a high speed pursuit is "imminently dangerous".

 

I suggest you re-read. I did no such thing.

 

Those who kill innocent people do have rights but why do you have more concern for the rights of the guilty than the rights of the innocent?

 

I don't know just how to respond to what strikes me as a ridiculous question.

 

I've already addressed that in responses to Russell. My concerns aren't with the rights of the "guilty." My concerns are with limiting the state to what it's authorized to do -- which you seem perfectly gung-ho about when it comes to guns -- in order to permit the system to convict only those who are guilty.

 

At the time the officer in that video used deadly force, there had been no finding of guilt. Just a hopped up officer who wasn't smart enough to come up with a better way to stop the rider.

[Stir]

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?

 

That happens. But more likely the case, they have radios and multiple cars. Eventually, they guy is going to run out of steam. Or, you have his plate and pck him up later. Run his plate, find out where he lives. Have a few squad car waiting in the area. Defuse the situation. What they were doing in South Carolina was worse. It was a deliberate attempt to run people down. They drove through residential areas and endangered all sorts of people. These officers were not interested in safety. It appears that they really want to see just how much they could get away with.

 

Just last week we had a "chase" that lasted 4 hours. The car ran out of gas. She was taken into custody without incident.

[MattS]

At the time the officer in that video used deadly force...

I think you're a worry-wart. How could you consider that to be the use of deadly force if the bad guy got right back up, immediately? I believe it was nothing worse than a love-tap, definitely not deadly force.

 

Deadly force is when you shoot a guy in the neck, and he dies. Ergo "deadly."

[ghaverkamp]

Deadly force is when you shoot a guy in the neck, and he dies. Ergo "deadly."

 

I suggest a dictionary. Maybe you have a birthday coming up.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

At the time the officer in that video used deadly force...

I think you're a worry-wart. How could you consider that to be the use of deadly force if the bad guy got right back up, immediately? I believe it was nothing worse than a love-tap, definitely not deadly force.

 

Deadly force is when you shoot a guy in the neck, and he dies. Ergo "deadly."

 

As I understand it, any action with a high probability of fatal outcome is considered "deadly force" - regardless of whether the actual outcome in any particular instance is fatal - and requires that the rules of engagement for deadly force be followed.

 

Shooting a suspect, regardless of whether he dies as a result, is deadly force.

 

The PIT maneuver - spinning out a fleeing car with a nudge to the rear quarter - is deadly force, even if it doesn't result in a rollover or violent collision with surrounding objects.

 

And swerving into the path of an oncoming motorcycle, I believe, also qualifies as deadly force - even though the guy practically jumped to his feet after the dismount.

[motorman587]

At the time the officer in that video used deadly force...

I think you're a worry-wart. How could you consider that to be the use of deadly force if the bad guy got right back up, immediately? I believe it was nothing worse than a love-tap, definitely not deadly force.

 

Deadly force is when you shoot a guy in the neck, and he dies. Ergo "deadly."

 

As I understand it, any action with a high probability of fatal outcome is considered "deadly force" - regardless of whether the actual outcome in any particular instance is fatal - and requires that the rules of engagement for deadly force be followed.

 

Shooting a suspect, regardless of whether he dies as a result, is deadly force.

 

The PIT maneuver - spinning out a fleeing car with a nudge to the rear quarter - is deadly force, even if it doesn't result in a rollover or violent collision with surrounding objects.

 

And swerving into the path of an oncoming motorcycle, I believe, also qualifies as deadly force - even though the guy practically jumped to his feet after the dismount.

 

Deadly force, is the force used to protect yourself or someone else's from seriously bodily injury or death. Been there done that and got a t-shirt......

 

Ladies and gentlemen, in the video is not deadly force. Look at the video again and you will see the cop car come in to the left lane, not in the motorcycle's lane. The motorcyclist then heads towards the officer car, the officer then attempts to get out of the way, but the crash happens.

[motorman587]

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?

 

That happens. But more likely the case, they have radios and multiple cars. Eventually, they guy is going to run out of steam. Or, you have his plate and pck him up later. Run his plate, find out where he lives. Have a few squad car waiting in the area. Defuse the situation. What they were doing in South Carolina was worse. It was a deliberate attempt to run people down. They drove through residential areas and endangered all sorts of people. These officers were not interested in safety. It appears that they really want to see just how much they could get away with.

 

Just last week we had a "chase" that lasted 4 hours. The car ran out of gas. She was taken into custody without incident.

 

Just cause you got the plate does not me the rider was the one fleeing from you. You need a postive ID to get a conviction.

[russell_bynum]

Just cause you got the plate does not me the rider was the one fleeing from you. You need a postive ID to get a conviction.

 

Not to mention the fact that many sportbikes are setup with fender eliminators that place the plate in a spot that's almost impossible to read (if they have a plate at all).

[ghaverkamp]

Ladies and gentlemen, in the video is not deadly force. Look at the video again and you will see the cop car come in to the left lane, not in the motorcycle's lane. The motorcyclist then heads towards the officer car, the officer then attempts to get out of the way, but the crash happens.

 

That's an interesting take. Do you ever remove those blinders?

 

 

The officer comes right into the lane in front of the motorcyclist.

[ghaverkamp]

Just cause you got the plate does not me the rider was the one fleeing from you. You need a postive ID to get a conviction.

 

Not to mention the fact that many sportbikes are setup with fender eliminators that place the plate in a spot that's almost impossible to read (if they have a plate at all).

 

Again, to both, so what?

[Fugu]

Deadly force, is the force used to protect yourself or someone else's from seriously bodily injury or death.

That's a poor definition.

 

I'm quoting from the Oregon Revised Statutes because I knew where to look already and I think it's a pretty clear and reasonable definition:

 

161.015 General definitions. As used in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, and ORS 166.635, unless the context requires otherwise:

 

...

 

(3) “Deadly physical force” means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

 

 

By this definition there is little doubt that the officer used deadly physical force.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, in the video is not deadly force.

 

Just because the rider was luckily not killed doesn't mean the force used was not deadly. This very easily could have ended with that rider dead.

 

Perhaps that would have been reasonable. We simply do not know, as we do not know why he was being pursued. Did he roll a stop sign or murder a convenience store clerk in cold blood? We have no idea.

 

Maybe deadly physical force was reasonable.

 

the officer then attempts to get out of the way, but the crash happens.

 

I see the cruiser turn then straighten before turning in front of the bike but I don't believe at all that the cop who put his car in front of this bike was trying to avoid him.

[russell_bynum]

Just cause you got the plate does not me the rider was the one fleeing from you. You need a postive ID to get a conviction.

 

Not to mention the fact that many sportbikes are setup with fender eliminators that place the plate in a spot that's almost impossible to read (if they have a plate at all).

 

Again, to both, so what?

 

So, you're saying just let them go then?

 

Help me understand how you think these things should go down.

[ghaverkamp]

So, you're saying just let them go then?

 

Help me understand how you think these things should go down.

 

I already wrote posts on this yesterday in response to your posts. What about them isn't clear? Maybe that's the better place to start.

[russell_bynum]

So, you're saying just let them go then?

 

Help me understand how you think these things should go down.

 

I already wrote posts on this yesterday in response to your posts. What about them isn't clear? Maybe that's the better place to start.

 

Apparently, it isn't clear to me where you've laid out a specific plan for effectively dealing with this sort of situation.

 

I found this 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.

 

But to me that's just saying "Let them go because someone might get hurt if you chase them."

 

Maybe I'm just being dense.

 

So...you're the cop. Specifically what do you do in this case?

[ghaverkamp]

So...you're the cop. Specifically what do you do in this case?

 

I'm not a cop, nor do I have any special knowledge of how to apprehend folks. It's up to the cops to figure out how to do so legally, not for folks to sit around and go, "Oh, the cop's job is so hard, let's just give up our rights and let them do whatever they want."

 

But to me that's just saying "Let them go because someone might get hurt if you chase them."

 

I specifically didn't say that, and I even reiterated to lawman today that I didn't say that.

 

However, if the answer is that law enforcement cannot stop a fleeing motorcyclist who is not putting anyone else in imminent danger of death or great physical harm using constitutional means, then, yes, I'm saying that they should let them go. If the motorcyclist is putting people in imminent danger -- and you know as well as I that a motorcycle driving fast down the road doesn't automatically do that -- then I have no problem with them using deadly force.

[russell_bynum]

So...you're the cop. Specifically what do you do in this case?

 

I'm not a cop, nor do I have any special knowledge of how to apprehend folks. It's up to the cops to figure out how to do so legally, not for folks to sit around and go, "Oh, the cop's job is so hard, let's just give up our rights and let them do whatever they want."

 

We're all armchair quarterbacking here. You have a better-than-average understanding of the law. You understand motorcycles, and you presumably have at least a basic understanding of what sort of resources police generally have at their disposal....so figure it out.

 

 

 

 

 

I specifically didn't say that, and I even reiterated to lawman today that I didn't say that.

 

I agree...you didn't use those words.

[DiggerJim]

That's an interesting take. Do you ever remove those blinders?

This exchange got me thinking about personal filters & how they influence our view of the world. I'm fascinated that the LEOs here seem to be leaning toward the "cop right, biker wrong" and the majority of the civilians are polar opposites.

 

I remember when the cops got the benefit of the doubt. I'm wondering whether their unquestioning defense of positions like "speeding tickets are all about safety not about revenue" and "it's reasonable to shoot at a groom-to-be 50 times" actually poisons their standing with the average law-abiding citizen?

 

If my filter is to stand by my brothers (in blue) then am I able to see the rationality of counter-arguments or am I hard wiring myself to find all of the reasons why they're wrong? Conversely, if my filter is "there but for the grace of god go I speeding down the highway past a strip-club in NYC" will I ever find the rationality in the arguments about reasonable force?

 

It seems to me that perhaps the police are winning the Sean Bell/Amadou Diallo/speeding ticket battles but losing the war by squandering the trust of the very people they profess to "protect and serve". What happens when they're told that we don't trust them to protect us anymore?

[Lawman]

What happens when they're told that we don't trust them to protect us anymore?

 

They will lose their zeal to do so..Generally speaking societies get the government they deserve.

[ericfoerster]

What happens when they're told that we don't trust them to protect us anymore?

 

It's called the Pinkerton security company. You get what you pay for.

 

You give examples of some very extreme cases. Out of millions arrests only a few end up like those you speak of.

I am not advocating any of those actions.

 

The video shows what appears to be an officer with serious decision problems. He appears to pull in then turn out, only to turn back in again. A judgement call made under duress.

My point is that if the guy did't run we wouldn't be here, right?

Again, not taking a side. Just wondering why the public is not so quick to jump on the person who made a life altering decision to run from the cops. It's a choice he made. The officer was responding to a threat that was mobile. He made the decision to take the mobile part out of the picture (again, not saying he is right).

It is my concern that the officers did not know why he was running. Did he just murder someone, rob a bank, molest a kid; who knows?

These situations are extremely volatile. There are plenty of chases that end up in car-jackings and hostage situations. People who run are like caged animals, there is no telling what would have happened later down the line.

Just another point of view to consider.

 

Examples here:

one

 

two

 

 

Just google them.

[SeanC]

What happens when they're told that we don't trust them to protect us anymore?

Perhaps this is just a semantic point, but it's not their job to protect us, and I don't think it ever was. Police forces exist to uphold the law. The motto, "To Protect and To Serve," is in regard to the common good, not necessarily you or I personally (even though they do in fact protect and serve individuals every day).

 

Regarding trust, well, it's a two-way street -- it's given and it's earned. If trust were simply given across the board, why even have a system of checks and balances? Why place limits on police power and authority at all?

[ghaverkamp]

Just wondering why the public is not so quick to jump on the person who made a life altering decision to run from the cops. It's a choice he made. The officer was responding to a threat that was mobile. He made the decision to take the mobile part out of the picture (again, not saying he is right).

It is my concern that the officers did not know why he was running. Did he just murder someone, rob a bank, molest a kid; who knows?

 

To answer your first question, to the extent the public isn't jumping on the rider, it's because the rider didn't do anything obvious that was likely to kill someone.

 

That said, as you mentioned, if the cops had reason to believe that something other than what was obvious in the video made him an imminent threat to others, then stopping him the way they did may absolutely have been the right thing to do. It's been covered often in this thread that we don't know what the officers knew. On the other hand, their actions after he was on the ground don't suggest they saw him as much of a threat.

 

These situations are extremely volatile. There are plenty of chases that end up in car-jackings and hostage situations. People who run are like caged animals, there is no telling what would have happened later down the line.

 

So, what are the choices? Use deadly force at the beginning of every chase, because if you don't, the person will be a threat later? I think we've already covered that that's unreasonable.

[ghaverkamp]

We're all armchair quarterbacking here. You have a better-than-average understanding of the law. You understand motorcycles, and you presumably have at least a basic understanding of what sort of resources police generally have at their disposal....so figure it out.

 

We've already covered many things that could have been done in this case. The officer could have tried to block the road rather than drive into the rider. The officers could have continued to follow the rider. The officers could have followed by air.

 

What do I think they should do generally? I'd try those things above. I'd get the plate, regardless of what John says. After all, many criminals are convicted only after having been caught away from the scenes of their crimes.

 

Eric mentioned remote disabling technologies earlier. As a privacy advocate, that gives me the willies. But, I guess that's one path to take. Other mandatory tracking technologies would be an option. (Yikes again.)

 

I guess I'd like to know if the incidence of flight and crime goes up where restrictive pursuit policies are in place.

[ericfoerster]

On the other hand, their actions after he was on the ground don't suggest they saw him as much of a threat.

 

I can't say that. The first officer had his hand covering his gun and the suspect was cuffed immediately.

 

it's because the rider didn't do anything obvious that was likely to kill someone.

 

Wrong. He could have very easily killed himself. Again, I suggest that the mere act of running in traffic can cause an accident which could result in a fatality or serious bodily injury to others. There are mounds of data that would support that point of view as well.

[ghaverkamp]

I can't say that. The first officer had his hand covering his gun and the suspect was cuffed immediately.

 

Maybe I've been swayed too much by watching too much "Cops", but those guys aren't usually covering their guns as they approach a guy they consider dangerous.

 

 

Wrong. He could have very easily killed himself. Again, I suggest that the mere act of running in traffic can cause an accident which could result in a fatality or serious bodily injury to others. There are mounds of data that would support that point of view as well.

 

Yes. I know you claim that. It could happen by anyone going out in traffic. That doesn't constitute an imminent harm. That constitutes a "possible, maybe, somewhere down the road" harm. In this video clip, the only traffic ahead of the rider was the cop who pulled in front of him.

[motorman587]

Ladies and gentlemen, in the video is not deadly force. Look at the video again and you will see the cop car come in to the left lane, not in the motorcycle's lane. The motorcyclist then heads towards the officer car, the officer then attempts to get out of the way, but the crash happens.

 

That's an interesting take. Do you ever remove those blinders?

 

 

The officer comes right into the lane in front of the motorcyclist.

 

Give a second before that, where the officer is in the other lane and the motorcycle serve towards him!!!!!

And you too, can remove the blinders..........

[ericfoerster]

In this video clip, the only traffic ahead of the rider was the cop who pulled in front of him.

 

 

Ah, grasshopper...there are at least 5 (both sides) that I count. There is also an intersection just ahead (1/4 mile on the left). Look close and you will see the traffic crossing as the light changes. There is your chance for an accident right there.

Can you assure that he was going to yield, stop, or not cause an accident at that very intersection. It also appears that the light changed at about the time the bike would have have entered the intersection.

 

Chapter 9 Texas Penal Code:

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly

force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes

the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the

other's life in an emergency.

 

 

 

[ghaverkamp]

Can you assure that he was going to yield, stop, or not cause an accident at that very intersection. It also appears that the light changed at about the time the bike would have have entered the intersection.

 

Nothing can be assured. That's not the legal standard, in any case. "Imminent" means imminent. Not possibly. Not maybe. Not even probably.

 

Chapter 9 Texas Penal Code:

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly

force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.

 

If there had been an emergency there. Or an immediate harm.

[ghaverkamp]

Give a second before that, where the officer is in the other lane and the motorcycle serve towards him!!!!!

And you too, can remove the blinders..........

 

You mean, when he briefly loses control/reconsiders plowing into the motorcycle, but after giving it some thought makes an obvious, conscious decision to use deadly force?

 

I swear, there's no action a cop could perform (other than letting the guy go) that y'all would find fault with.

[ericfoerster]

Greg, how can a vehicle fleeing the police, and headed for an intersection, not meet any requirement for immediate action?

 

My heart would sink if that video showed the bike plow into a car and impact the passenger side door where granny sat.

Granny flames at the hospital a short while later from a heart attack caused by the trauma.

Plausible, no?

[ghaverkamp]

Greg, how can a vehicle fleeing the police, and headed for an intersection, not meet any requirement for immediate action?

 

"Chapter 9 Texas Penal Code:... immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency."

 

First, the statute you're quoting is from the penal code. The penal code is fine and dandy, but it's not relevant to my points. I haven't been suggesting the officer should be brought up on attempted murder charges like some. I have been suggesting that the rider's Fourth Amendment rights were violated. What Texas permits in its penal code affects the ability of Texas to prosecute people in Texas. It doesn't affect the ability of the U.S. government to enforce the Constitution.

 

Second, if I am to accept that the video shows an "emergency" necessitating immediate deadly force, then that would mean that anyone -- Russell, say -- would be perfectly justified to pull in front of the motorcyclist, too. So, do you really see a situation that would allow anyone in the vicinity to take action using deadly force?

 

My heart would sink if that video showed the bike plow into a car and impact the passenger side door where granny sat.

Granny flames at the hospital a short while later from a heart attack caused by the trauma.

Plausible, no?

 

Oh, sure, it's plausible. It's also plausible -- and more likely -- that he won't hit anyone. If the cop in the video hadn't been there, but I was and was armed, I doubt that a court would find me justified in shooting the guy to keep him from potentially hitting a grandmother who might be in a car at the next intersection that might get hit who might die of a heart attack brought on by the stress of the possible accident.

[russell_bynum]

We're all armchair quarterbacking here. You have a better-than-average understanding of the law. You understand motorcycles, and you presumably have at least a basic understanding of what sort of resources police generally have at their disposal....so figure it out.

 

We've already covered many things that could have been done in this case. The officer could have tried to block the road rather than drive into the rider. The officers could have continued to follow the rider. The officers could have followed by air.

 

OK, so you've got a car pulled out and stopped in the road. The bike just swerves around him, confident that the LEO isn't allow to move to keep the road blocked because that might be dangerous.

 

And you might be able to see the plate (if there is one). That's cool...I'll just remember to ride without a plate.

 

Or we can call up a gazillion-dollar helicopter. I'm sure there's one hovering close by anyway so it can get to the scene and acquire the perp before he gets away.

 

None of those options seem like they would be remotely feasible/effective.

 

 

Eric mentioned remote disabling technologies earlier. As a privacy advocate, that gives me the willies. But, I guess that's one path to take. Other mandatory tracking technologies would be an option. (Yikes again.)

 

And the first time someone crashes because they were zapped with the remote disabler and lost power steering/power brakes the bleeding hearts will be all over it calling it unconstitutional.

 

I guess I'd like to know if the incidence of flight and crime goes up where restrictive pursuit policies are in place.

 

Well...talk to the sportbike guys. They run because they know there aren't likely to be chased, and even if they are chased, the cops aren't allowed to do anything if they get close (which they probably can't anyway.)

 

If the story was "If you run and they get close to you, they'll knock your ass off your bike and haul what's left of your ass to jail." do you think they'd still be so willing to run? (I'm not asking if you think that's right/appropriate/constitutional/reasonable.)

[ghaverkamp]

None of those options seem like they would be remotely feasible/effective.

 

They already happen, so they're clearly feasible. Effectiveness will vary. Big deal.

 

And the first time someone crashes because they were zapped with the remote disabler and lost power steering/power brakes the bleeding hearts will be all over it calling it unconstitutional.

 

Yes. It's much better to ram them and just try to kill them outright.

 

Well...talk to the sportbike guys. They run because they know there aren't likely to be chased, and even if they are chased, the cops aren't allowed to do anything if they get close (which they probably can't anyway.)

 

All of 'em? Those "sportbike" guys? Does it matter which one I talk to, or are they all just a bunch of crooks?

 

If the story was "If you run and they get close to you, they'll knock your ass off your bike and haul what's left of your ass to jail." do you think they'd still be so willing to run? (I'm not asking if you think that's right/appropriate/constitutional/reasonable.)

 

First, I don't believe that there are that many people who are willing to run. Second, of the portion who are, I don't think it will make any difference, because I doubt significant thought goes into such actions. Might it impact some? Sure.

 

It doesn't really matter.

 

If we could kill little kids who cry in movies, I think fewer parents would bring their kids to movies. That doesn't make the practice any saner.

 

(I remain fascinated by your obsession with the idea that anyone who flees should be stopped by any means necessary, as if the actual societal cost of a crime increases greatly between hooning without getting caught and hooning but getting caught and fleeing. For someone who projects an image of individuality and independence, you sure seem caught up with immediate capitulation to the demands of authority.)

[Husker Red]

Well...talk to the sportbike guys. They run because they know there aren't likely to be chased, and even if they are chased, the cops aren't allowed to do anything if they get close (which they probably can't anyway.)

If all these sportbike guys have been running from the cops where all all of the deaths to pedestrian and innocent people they have caused? Many of your arguments are based on the idea that fleeing creates a huge danger to bystanders, yet now you say sportbikers do it all the time and get away unharmed?

 

Eric said earlier that it's "just as likely" the fleeing suspect will kill someone further down the road. I think that's rather unlikely, but possible. "Likely" is your chances of killing someone by hitting their motorcycle with a cruiser. I'm not willing to endorse that level of force for some idiot who ran to avoid a speeding ticket or might have a bag of weed in his pocket.

[Mike]

We've already covered many things that could have been done in this case. The officer could have tried to block the road rather than drive into the rider. The officers could have continued to follow the rider. The officers could have followed by air.

 

I'm not sure if you believe all of these things are feasible, but I did want to point a couple things out to people. There is a widespread perception, largely a result of TV cop shows, that the police have any number of tools at their disposal--instant interception of cell phone signals, calling out copters that will be on the scene in moments, even satellite surveillance. It just doesn't work out that way. Only a handful of major cities have helicopters. A fair number of highway patrols have one or two fixed-wing aircraft, but they're used in very limited circumstances and there's almost no ability to "scramble" these aircraft.

[SeanC]

I remain fascinated by your obsession with the idea that anyone who flees should be stopped by any means necessary, as if the actual societal cost of a crime increases greatly between hooning without getting caught and hooning but getting caught and fleeing.

I think you've just identified the crux of the matter. Fleeing from the police is a very public display of disregard for authority, which many if not most police departments respond to with a show of force. In other words, it's really about protecting authority first. The arguments that it is about safety, about preventing potential outcomes ("the guy might crash into the passenger door of a sedan, where a granny might be sitting, and it might cause granny to suffer a heart attack"), are mostly rationalizations.

[TyTass]

Is feasibility in ALL cases really the issue? Not you Mike, but too often in this thread, and other threads on this topic, the discussion becomes diverted to one of pragmatism [of effecting an arrests] rather than what is the balance of security and freedom.

 

I have to agree with Greg in that it is not his job, my job, nor the job of the public in general to come up with feasible solutions to identify the most effective and/or safest arrests possible such that an accused criminal can be brought before judgment. Is not the onus of identifying arrest methods/practices/policy/etc. that meet societies desires (as weighed against the Constitution by the Supremes') a task of the combined efforts and industry of police depts, technology companies, and various LEO training/consultant contractors?

 

A rather dismal but not wholly inaccurate view can be expressed that the public's job (through our system of local and federal governments) is to decide in what cases and conditions they would rather live at the mercy of a criminal or the mercy of a police force. Both can take away our rights just as easily.

 

I can't help in this case but to agree with the words of Benjamin Franklin who said: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

 

My interest in and reading of American History has resulted in a strong sense of certainty that this subject has been and will continue to be a contentious issue simply because there are and will always be those who desire instant justice ... those who have not the patience for the rule of law.

 

And though they claim to be perfectly happy to live with a system focussed on accountabiity, I see them as simply unwilling to accept that thousands, if not millions, of people already disagree with they way they run their lives and affairs ... and cannot picture that day when they are held accountible for "wrongs" they cannot now fathom because those wrongs seem so ridiculous right now.

[Whip]

American history......hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!

[TyTass]

It's easier to read American History simply because it's so short ... just like my attention span!

[Mike]

Craig--

 

Some very astute thoughts. As I've followed this thread, I actually think something else is going on, and that is that the debate here has been largely been that in which a jury would engage.

 

I sense, though perhaps I'm being too optimistic, that there is, for the most part, fundamental agreement on the principles of justice implicated in this debate, but pretty substantial disagreement on how those principles should be applied to this itsy-bitsy video clip. I think most everyone--from the rabid pro-LEO types to the bleeding heart ACLU types--agree on the fundamental principles. Cops should be responsible and judicious in their use of force, and deadly force should reserved for those circumstances where an individual poses a danger to others.

 

The key disagreement centers around the level of danger posed by the biker and the imminence of that danger. Some of us feel that experience--the fact that many chases of this sort end in death or mayhem--is enough to establish an imminent danger. Others see that as a more remote possibility, and demand, as I read it, that the danger has to be more particularized and immediate. I think they're saying--and I'm reading this with some bias--that it's not enough that someone engages in behavior that's generally dangerous to others, but that they must be convinced that it transcends the dangers that are generally attendant to a high-speed pursuit.

 

Frankly, while the principles are important, I find it a little silly that we have all pronounced our judgments based on the scant information before us. We have not seen the full video, from the time the chase was initiated. We have not heard the accounts of the officers or the bikers. We do not know if anything other than a traffic violation initiated the chase. Yet we're all pontificating about fundamental issues of justice, social responsibility, and the state's application of force in law enforcement. These are topics of great importance, but I see it as a little goofy that so many of us (me included) have been able to divine the truth from a few seconds of fuzzy video with pretty much zero information to place those few seconds in context.

 

It seems clear that we all need to get out and start riding.

[ericfoerster]

Eric said earlier that it's "just as likely" the fleeing suspect will kill someone further down the road. I think that's rather unlikely, but possible.

 

Again, google is our friend. Just do a search and you too can watch chase after chase end up in the side of a car, or worse yet, a crash that ends a fatality.

I've only been doing this 17 years, so I am well aware of what happens in chases. We only had two last week.

 

I'm not willing to endorse that level of force for some idiot who ran to avoid a speeding ticket or might have a bag of weed in his pocket.

 

Who said that is all the fleeing person did?

 

Here are a few examples of what is out there for us doing the job:

 

One

 

two

 

three

 

My favorite "routine stop"

[ESokoloff]

I find it a little silly that we have all pronounced our judgments based on the scant information before us. We have not seen the full video, from the time the chase was initiated. We have not heard the accounts of the officers or the bikers. We do not know if anything other than a traffic violation initiated the chase. Yet we're all pontificating about fundamental issues of justice, social responsibility, and the state's application of force in law enforcement. These are topics of great importance, but I see it as a little goofy that so many of us ..snip..have been able to divine the truth from a few seconds of fuzzy video with pretty much zero information to place those few seconds in context.

 

 

Pretty much sums it up for me.

[TyTass]

Yes, you are correct. I was indeed emphasizing what I see as the more fundamental theme at hand rather than the specifics in the video, for precisely the reason you stated ... We know little from this video and have had nothing but pure speculation as to what could have happened - based on people's experience (LEOs), probability, etc.

 

I really wasn't addressing you specifically, though I did reply to your email as that was the most recent on the tangential discussion of what the police could do beside use deadly force. Your critique of Greg's points in that context were valid in that context, but I was questioning the position necessary to presume that he do so in the first place.

 

Apparently it was less obvious than I'd hoped that I was arguing the merits of the option of not pursuing without clear cut imminent dager (as opposed to possible). This is one of the many millions of reasons I am not a lawyer, much less any sort of litigator.