02-27-2007, 12:36 AM
On the way to Los Angeles a car passed us followed by a dozen or more highway patrol cars.
They sped by us fairly fast and I just continued going along, like a big dummy!
I didn't trip on it till a few minutes later .. "how do these things generally end?"
Right about then I began to see tail lights going on up ahead.
We were coming to an off ramp and I decided to take it.
I told Charles,
"I don't want to be near this mess! Sometimes they come out shooting!"
Up ahead the traffic was starting to back up.
There were cars backing up on the freeway, driving in reverse up the off ramp.
About 10 minutes went by and the red tail lights up ahead turned off and
cars began to move forward so we started up and got back on the highway.
3/4 of a mile up we saw the car they'd been chasing was on the shoulder of the road near a big pile of dirt.
The cops found a good place to run him off the road.
After seeing these chases on TV I know not to get too close.
They always seem to lose control and hit innocent persons.
I found this article today and I disagree with it whole heartedly!
It says this idiot gets to blame the cops because he got injured while they were chasing him.
Too fucking bad! I don't care if he died from getting chased!
He became a lethal weapon when he used his car to try to out run the cops.
I think he gave up his rights when he put everyone in danger.
If the person causing the chase gets hurt that is not the cop's fault.
Picking up a loaded gun and waving it is the same to me as getting in a car
and going like a bat out of hell.
Such a person must be stopped before innocent people are hurt or killed.
I have no quams about stopping them dead.
I am more inclined to restrict the cops from doing chases.
I was on Market st. in downtown San Francisco as I turned right
to go up a cross street just as a cop car was coming down it [in my lane] heading against traffic!
we nearly had a head on collision!
I do not expect to see the grill of a speeding cop car in my lane on a blind turn!
I think the cops should call for choppers to do the chasing.
There are plenty of helecopters over head during commute hours.
Shoot the car with a paint gun then let the choppers chase it!
This case is about the rights of the person doing the high speed getaway. What rights?!
this is the article}
Feb. 25, 2007 — High-speed police chases are fodder for cable news, but they kill more than 350 people on average every year. On Monday, for the first time in 20 years, the Supreme Court considers limiting how far police can go in trying to catch a fleeing suspect.
The case stems from a 2001 chase in Georgia. Officers were chasing a speeding Cadillac driven by 19-year-old Victor Harris. They clocked Harris going 73 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone. The chase reached speeds up to 90 miles per hour on the wet, dark Atlanta road.
Finally, police used a police technique known as PIT, an acronym for Pursuit Intervention Technique. The police cruiser rammed the fleeing car at angle to spin it around. In Harris's case, it sent his car flying into an embankment and left him paralyzed.
Harris sued Deputy Timothy Scott for using excessive force. Two lower courts have sided with Harris.
The chase was recorded by a dashboard camera, which also recorded Scott getting permission from his supervisor to use the PIT technique.
"Go ahead and take him out. Take him out!" comes the reply over the radio.
Harris's lawyer, Craig Jones, says Harris was just a speeder, fleeing because he was scared. He says deadly force was not justified.
"The mere fact that someone is driving unsafely or driving in violation of traffic laws, is that enough reason to be able to use deadly force to stop them?" Jones said.
A survey by the U.S. Department of Justice found only four percent of Americans believe high-speed chases should be banned entirely. More than half say police should have enough discretion to decide when it is safe to chase a suspect and when it isn't.
ABC News' Jan Crawford Greenburg and Dennis Powell contributed to this report.