Supreme Court rules that police can chase, even if it endangers lives
Common sense dictates that if you run from the police, it will end badly. In our oft-litigious society, suing as a means to evade responsibility is a popular option. In 2001, 19-year-old Victor Harris engaged Coweta County deputy sheriff Timothy Scott in a dangerous chase on rain-slicked roads. To end the chase, deputy Scott rammed Harris's car, which then crashed down an embankment. Mr. Harris was left a quadriplegic from the injuries sustained in the wreck, and subsequently sued on the contention that the sheriff used unreasonable deadly force. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled 8-1 against Harris's claim. Lower courts had ruled in favor of Harris, but the Supreme Court overturned that opinion. The reasoning for the decision was that while police chases are dangerous, doing away with them ensures perpetrators a means of escape by merely driving erratically at high speed. Either way, there'll still be someone running from police, endangering other innocent bystanders. While the outcome of Mr. Harris's chase is tragic, it doesn't change the fact that instead of stopping and accepting a citation for travelling 73 mph in a 55 zone, he chose to run. It's terrible that someone so young will have to live out the rest of his days with paralysis, but that could have been prevented by a more thorough examination of the consequences at the time he attempted to evade the law. The most damning bit of evidence was the video of the chase, which shows how reckless Mr. Harris really was, and likely led to the near-unanimous decision from the court.
[Source: NYTimes]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Kwyjibo 1:39PM (5/01/2007)
Wow...that actually makes sense.
Reply
Gardiner Westbound 1:43PM (5/01/2007)
I'm still amazed when commonsense breaks out in the Supreme Court.
Reply
JoeBlack 1:44PM (5/01/2007)
It's a tragic outcome for the kid, but he should have known better. I'll never understand why people will go to such lengths to avoid a (virtual) slap on the wrist; it was a stupid move.
Reply
Ken 1:45PM (5/01/2007)
Am I the only one who doesn't feel sorry for Harris?
Reply
Schneegz 1:48PM (5/01/2007)
If a person runs from the cops, that person is responsible for ANY injuries that occur; the runner's, the cops' AND any innocent bystanders'.
Reply
dskinner 5:31PM (5/01/2007)
I feel bad for the guy, but he put himself into that situation. You run from the police and bad things almost always happen.
Hats off to the Supreme Court!
Reply
dre 2:15PM (5/01/2007)
Harris was a Dee De Dee because is he run form the police. Now he is a real Dee De Dee. Then he have the nerves to sue! i don't feel sorry him.
Reply
brimg87 2:06PM (5/01/2007)
If he would have ran into something or someone on his own his outcome could have been the same. Better for the cops to end it ASAP. I don't feel sorry for him.
Reply
Annonymous 2:08PM (5/01/2007)
According to CNN he was also driving on a suspended license.
Reply
DaveTehWave 2:16PM (5/01/2007)
What kind of video format is that?
Reply
Eagle1 2:20PM (5/01/2007)
The minute he rammed another cop car to keep the chase going - he gave up all his rights to claim that the cops used "unreasonable" force to get him off the road. He was a threat not only to the police involved but also to any citizen nearby. His condition is unfortunate, but it is far from being the fault of the police - he made the choice to run in the first place.
If he would have hit the squad car and caused similar physical damages to a cop would he have claimed the it's not my fault defense: "it wouldn't have happened if they wouldn't have chased me" ?????
His disregard for the safety of others to try to get out of a traffic ticket is startling.
Reply
bmoredlj 2:19PM (5/01/2007)
Justice served. Sorry Harris got permanently injured, but HE created the situation. No one else.
More innocent people could've died had the chase been allowed to continue. A car in the wrong hands is a deadly force in and of itself, one that has to be neutralized quickly to minimize public danger.
The sheriff was protecting the innocent drivers of the road by taking out Harris. If innocents had been killed, it wouldn't have been their choice to die.
Harris had a choice: eat the ticket or run and face all manner of unpredictable consequences. He chose to run and paid the price.
It's appalling that his suit even got to our highest court.
My sister was caught doing 90 in a 55 zone in her Civic. She stopped when she saw lights, and got a big fat ticket.
Result: She has use of all four limbs, and a slightly lighter wallet.
Reply
paul34 2:29PM (5/01/2007)
It's his fault.
With that said, the policy in Florida is to let people go if they are driving extremely erratically or if they ran for "just" a speeding ticket. We've had innocent bystanders killed due to this.
Besides, you can never outrun a helicopter.
Reply
roadside observer 2:48PM (5/01/2007)
Justice was served - in more ways than one.
And no, I don't feel sorry for the 19-year-old kid. He brought it on himself.
Reply
P to the C 3:06PM (5/01/2007)
Oh, a car can outrun a chopper pretty easily. They're not that fast.
Reply
Eagle1 3:14PM (5/01/2007)
#9 I don't know what format that is
You can watch it on youtube - that's what I did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auw_VAczrTw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmx8gzx1N1k
In the first one you can see him going through a school zone about 35 seconds in. Granted this wasn't during school hours. Stevens in his dissention says: "no pedestrians or other “bystanders” were present" - I counted at least 50 cars and at least one school bus in the first video. Aren't other cars "bystanders" that are at risk of a person like this???
Reply
jordan 3:17PM (5/01/2007)
When I first read the headline, I was a bit worried. To me, the headline suggests that police can continue a chase no matter *who* is endangered, as in I thought that if the police hit a bystander during a chase it would be okay. Thankfully, the article says otherwise.
While I'm happy that the Supreme Court looked to common sense in the matter, it's not that suprising. The lack of common sense is usually confined to only the lower courts.
Reply
The Penguin 3:24PM (5/01/2007)
@#14 When you factor in the fact that the car has to be on a twisting turning raod and the chopper doesn't that makes up for a slower top speed.
Reply
jg 3:32PM (5/01/2007)
'More innocent people could've died had the chase been allowed to continue. '
Its funny how the same sentence can be used to argue both sides of the argument. Its the reason why you should crash him to end it early and the reason why you should let him go and grab him later when he tries to return to his normal life. And he will try to return to his normal life because if he's stupid enough to try to outrun cops he's stupid enpough to think he'll actually get away with it.
Reply
Bryan 3:35PM (5/01/2007)
A very sad story.
Reply