Let's say I am tooling down the road at 30 or 40 miles an hour over the limit. I'm weaving in and out of traffic, passing on the wrong side, maybe even the shoulder, and causing some real problems for those on the highway that I encounter in my travels.

I happen to notice that there is a car behind me, following my every move. He's doing the same thing I'm doing move for move.

So, awhile down the road, it happens. Someone doesn't take evasion action quick enough to avoid the dangerous situation I caused and a horrendous crash ensues. Perhaps even a few people get killed.

The car behind me, who was doing the same thing, doesn't hit anyone. They keep on going, or maybe even stop to assist those that I injured by my actions.

What share in the fault for the accident should the person who was driving the car behind me, and was doing everything I did, but didn't hit anyone, share? How much should they be liable?

That's the easy, and the trick part of the question. The obvious answer is, none! But you might be surprised to know that many, many persons feel the driver of the other car SHOULD be liable for the accident, even though they didn't hit anyone and didn't cause the accident! Why? Because the person in the other car was a police officer with flashing lights on trying to get me to stop!

The Supreme Court has ruled that in such a case, there must be something like gross negligence shown on the part of the police officer for them to be liable. Can any of you come up with a valid reason as to why so many people think that having the flashing red lights on a police vehicle while trying to get someone like this off the road makes them liable for the other driver's bad conduct?

There is none. Police in many states realize that if they "chase" - and therefore "push" the idiot to further speed and dangerous driving - then they may be liable.

No, I don't agree with that, but that's the way that this nation is headed: The courts too often let the blame be put on someone else...

I abuse kids because I was abused as a child...
I drove too fast and wreckless because someone was chasing me and forcing me to do so...
I beat my kids because my daddy beat me...

...

No, I'm not a gloom and doomer, I just call 'em as I see 'em.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimGunther

Let's say I am tooling down the road at 30 or 40 miles an hour over the limit. I'm weaving in and out of traffic, passing on the wrong side, maybe even the shoulder, and causing some real problems for those on the highway that I encounter in my travels.

I happen to notice that there is a car behind me, following my every move. He's doing the same thing I'm doing move for move.

So, awhile down the road, it happens. Someone doesn't take evasion action quick enough to avoid the dangerous situation I caused and a horrendous crash ensues. Perhaps even a few people get killed.

The car behind me, who was doing the same thing, doesn't hit anyone. They keep on going, or maybe even stop to assist those that I injured by my actions.

What share in the fault for the accident should the person who was driving the car behind me, and was doing everything I did, but didn't hit anyone, share? How much should they be liable?

That's the easy, and the trick part of the question. The obvious answer is, none!! But you might be surprised to know that many, many persons feel the driver of the other car SHOULD be liable for the accident, even though they didn't hit anyone and didn't cause the accident! Why? Because the person in the other car was a police officer with flashing lights on trying to get me to stop!

The Supreme Court has ruled that in such a case, there must be something like gross negligence shown on the part of the police officer for them to be liable. Can any of you come up with a valid reason as to why so many people think that having the flashing red lights on a police vehicle while trying to get someone like this off the road makes them liable for the other driver's bad conduct?

---

I think this is a question for a discussion board, not a legal board and perhaps it will be moved.

That being said I have investigated several of these and the legal argument by the Attorney for the innocent injured party(ies) is that the Police Officer CAUSED the reckless and dangerous driving by pursuing the reckless driver who then attempted to evade the Police.

Juries have decided in some cases that the Police should have pulled off and, therefore, are responsible; they have decided in other cases that the reckless driving was so extreme that the Police had no choice but to try to stop the reckless driver.

What is your basis for your "many, many people feel - " statement - ? These are the people Attorneys try to get on the jury.

(I find your explanation of the accident a little confusing but I think I understand it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

I think this is a question for a discussion board, not a legal board and perhaps it will be moved.

---

Agreed. It's been moved ;)

It takes two vehicles to have a chase. Once the second vehicle is removed from the situation, the first vehicle now has no external influence affecting its behavior. Why do so many police officers believe the laws of physics do not apply to them? Are the police so stupid that they cannot retrieve a license plate from their video camera and subdue the suspect quietly at their home or workplace when they least expect it?

No, the police get off on the chase. Control and domination is in their psychological makeup. It takes a certain type of person to pursue a career in law enforcement. Few people have respect for such ego.

Then there is the issue of values. Police place a high value on arbitrary law or lack thereof. People place a high value on personal safety, life, and property. When suspect and police risk an individual's safety, life, and property to satiate a desire for lawfulness a conflict of priorities results. I personally do not give a rat's a** if J. Doe is driving on an expired license as long as it doesn't affect me; it's an issue between the DMV and him. Now enter police and a chase ensues, property is damaged, life perhaps is lost, and for what? An arbitrary rule was broken.

If law is so valuable to risk so much, holding J. Doe accountable by choosing to create a set of circumstances that will likely break more of them doesn't seem logical. If a single 90mph vehicle is deemed lawfully wrong, two 90 mph vehicles is doubly wrong. The suspect has the choice of accepting the consequence of his actions or fleeing. The police have the choice of controlled apprehension later or pursuing immediately. The public merely wants both parties held accountable for their own actions in the destruction that ensues.

It would work if the car was not stolen or if it was not a joy ride and if after they find the car the owner swears and claims it was not him, so the courts will not hold the owner liable, since you can't prove who the driver was.

If that person had just raped a child, do you chase them, if they had justed killed one person doyou chase, do you chase if they killed 4.

But the law has always been clear, at least until lately when liberals who hate police want to do away with the protection police have.
But if the one person doing the criminal act is doing something illegal, they are responsible for actions cuased by their act. A bank robber pulls a gun and shoots, the police officer shoots back but the police officer hits the hostage, It is the bank robber that is charged with the hostiges death not the police officer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scleros

It takes two vehicles to have a chase. Once the second vehicle is removed from the situation, the first vehicle now has no external influence affecting its behavior. Why do so many police officers believe the laws of physics do not apply to them? Are the police so stupid that they cannot retrieve a license plate from their video camera and subdue the suspect quietly at their home or workplace when they least expect it?

No, the police get off on the chase. Control and domination is in their psychological makeup. It takes a certain type of person to pursue a career in law enforcement. Few people have respect for such ego.

Then there is the issue of values. Police place a high value on arbitrary law or lack thereof. People place a high value on personal safety, life, and property. When suspect and police risk an individual's safety, life, and property to satiate a desire for lawfulness a conflict of priorities results. I personally do not give a rat's a** if J. Doe is driving on an expired license as long as it doesn't affect me; it's an issue between the DMV and him. Now enter police and a chase ensues, property is damaged, life perhaps is lost, and for what? An arbitrary rule was broken.

If law is so valuable to risk so much, holding J. Doe accountable by choosing to create a set of circumstances that will likely break more of them doesn't seem logical. If a single 90mph vehicle is deemed lawfully wrong, two 90 mph vehicles is doubly wrong. The suspect has the choice of accepting the consequence of his actions or fleeing. The police have the choice of controlled apprehension later or pursuing immediately. The public merely wants both parties held accountable for their own actions in the destruction that ensues.

---

I think your generalities discredit your opinion. You cannot lump all Police into one category or way of thinking; you cannot lump all "people" into one category or way of thinking. You cannot lump all Police chases into one scenario, one particularly "harmless" violation (such as driving with expired plates).

Next time somebody is tearing down the highway at 90 mph - your quote - you try to get their license plate number, with or without a video camera.

I think there are exceptions to every rule and you have disregarded them. Thank goodness juries have not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

I think there are exceptions to every rule and you have disregarded them.

---

Nope, I'm one of those liberals who hates police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scleros

Nope, I'm one of those liberals who hates police.

---

And insurance companies. Good to spread it around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

And insurance companies. Good to spread it around.

---

I don't TRUST insurance companies, but we're getting off topic. Jab at me privately if need be.;)

There are too many idiots out there who try to get their 15 minutes of fame by initiating a high speed police pursuit. By their actions, they put innocent lives at risk. My solution is to put all the criminals on notice that they will be taken out with extreme prejudice if they continue to flee a police pursuit. A well placed shot from a police helicopter should be able to kill the felon at such a point where his auto would do the least damage when it is unguided.

This may seem harsh at first, but once the word got out there would be a marked decrease in felony flight. I would rather take my chances with an out of control vehicle (because the driver is dead), than with a dirt bag who might kill a loved one or a friend. The downside is that it would reduce the ratings of car chase shows.

My basis for saying that many, many people feel that the police should have some liability for the accident caused by another driver who won't obey the law to pull over is the many, many articles, TV shows, lawsuits, and the comments I have seen on the subject and also as a result of doing an Internet search for "high speed chases."

The notion that the flashing lights on a police car "push" a driver down the road is to me just about as idiotic as saying that the presence of a stop sign causes people to run it. It takes a foot pressing hard on a gas petal to flee and elude, not flashing lights.

We as a society are not hard enough on the mindless thugs who do this kind of thing. In addition to a long jail term, it is obvious to me that states should pass unlimited liability laws in fleeing and eluding cases so as to make the wrongdoer pay for all the results of their wrongdoing. Permanent revocation of driving privileges and denial of license plates to such persons seem appropriate. Or perhaps the states could issue mandatory bright orange licenses plates with words like "hazardous driver" on them for persons who commit serious offenses on the highway so that others can be warned about what they are facing next to them. What we are doing now to stop these thugs is obviously not working.

Many people make comments like, "Why did he chase the guy for just having a burned-out tail lite?" People forget that fleeing and eluding is itself an extremely dangerous offense and it is only common sense that the more serious an offense is, the more effort should be put into catching the person who decides to do such a horrible thing. Placing limits on people who are professionally trained to deal with such situations just makes it easier for the wrongdoer to get away with this stuff, placing society at even more danger than a case of fleeing and eluding might cause.

The statement "police put a high value on arbitrary law" is one of the most mindless statements I have heard on the subject. I first became a police officer at the age of 18 and have worn a badge of one kind or another most of my adult life. I can guarantee you that the highest value police have, and the greatest pleasure of the job, is bringing down the sanctions of the criminal justice system on the heads of people who do horrible things to others. People who flee and elude fall squarely into this category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimGunther

I can guarantee you that the highest value police have, and the greatest pleasure of the job, is bringing down the sanctions of the criminal justice system on the heads of people who do horrible things...

---

Yes, that's the control and domination aspect I mentioned. I think your original post was motivated by a need to understand and comprehend the mentality of a large number of people that do not view you as you view yourself, nor value what you value. You now have this mindless person's perspective. Perhaps more will follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scleros

I don't TRUST insurance companies, but we're getting off topic. Jab at me privately if need be.;)

---

That wasn't a jab - that was a comment. Sorry if you took it as a jab. All I know about you is what you've posted... and that is what you posted.

[QUOTE=JimGunther]The notion that the flashing lights on a police car "push" a driver down the road is to me just about as idiotic as saying that the presence of a stop sign causes people to run it. It takes a foot pressing hard on a gas petal to flee and elude, not flashing lights.


Cut out what I'm not addressing but didn't change the above -

I happen to agree with you but... I think this concept is flawed.

I don't think your argument that flashing lights on a police car push a driver to speed and the presence of a stop sign causes people to run it.

People run stop signs for whatever reason - they're in a hurry, they didn't see it, whatever. No agenda, other than stupidity or negligence.

People who speed away from the Police are looking to NOT get arrested. They have an agenda.

JudyKatTree I think you are abit confused about what I am trying to say. I said that the notion that flashing lights on a police car push a person down the road is idiotic, that means I don't agree with that notion. If you say that people who flee pursuing police cars have an "agenda", then the same can be said of people who run stop signs-they are trying to get where they are going in a hurry.

Whether they have an agenda or not, the point is that a traffic control device, no matter what it is, does not cause people to violate it. The person has to decide to do that on their own.

To really understand the horror created by a person who chooses to flee and elude, you should watch some of those police chase shows as opposed to dramas where fake police try to catch fake crooks under fake circumstance. These people, as a general rule, endanger more lives and have the potential to cause more harm than occurs in most armed robberies. That's why we need to do everything we can to put them behind bars as soon as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimGunther

JudyKatTree I think you are abit confused about what I am trying to say. I said that the notion that flashing lights on a police car push a person down the road is idiotic, that means I don't agree with that notion. If you say that people who flee pursuing police cars have an "agenda", then the same can be said of people who run stop signs-they are trying to get where they are going in a hurry.

Whether they have an agenda or not, the point is that a traffic control device, no matter what it is, does not cause people to violate it. The person has to decide to do that on their own.

To really understand the horror created by a person who chooses to flee and elude, you should watch some of those police chase shows as opposed to dramas where fake police try to catch fake crooks under fake circumstance. These people, as a general rule, endanger more lives and have the potential to cause more harm than occurs in most armed robberies. That's why we need to do everything we can to put them behind bars as soon as possible.

---

No, I don't think I'm confused - I think there's a difference between seeing flashing lights and speeding away to avoid being arrested and running a stop sign simply because you can. I guess we'll never agree on that.

Of course a traffic control device doesn't cause people to violate it. In fact - what? But do flashing lights behind you cause "you" (if you have a problem with the Police) to speed away? Yes, I think they do. As I said, I guess we can't agree on that.

I understand the "horror created by a person who chooses to flee and elude." I don't get my info from Police reality shows - I'm an accident investigator and I've been there live and in person to see the carnage.

Question the statistics "as a general rule" that speeding drivers endanger more lives (and have the potential to cause more harm) than people involved in "most" armed robberies. I believe you said you're a Police Officer so you very well have info which I do not have.

Sounds like an opinion, not fact.

"Yes, that's the control and domination aspect I mentioned. I think your original post was motivated by a need to understand and comprehend the mentality of a large number of people that do not view you as you view yourself, nor value what you value. You now have this mindless person's perspective. Perhaps more will follow."

Is "control and dominanation" really the overiding concept you see here? Isn't it obvious to you that a person who causes legal harm or injury to another should pay for it? Don't get me wrong, as you mentioned previously, there are people drawn to careers like law the enforcement profession who like to control and dominate. I have seen many of these people down through the years and they can cause a lot of problems for themselves and others as they deal with members of our society.

Laws in this country are not arbitrary, they represent what people who make laws feel is best for whatever reason, some of them selfish, some with good intentions, some without. I studied the Constitution a great deal in college and "arbitrary and capricous" laws are prohibited.

No, I'm not asking the question so as to determine anything about how others view me or how I view myself. Its an abstract concept that really has nothing to do with me personally. The basic question I am asking is a simple one: As a general rule, if a car causes an accident, another car following them who does not collide with anything does not share responsibility for an accident. Why do so many people feel that the fact that the car following is a police car should cause the following car to share liability? It's that simple.

[QUOTE=JimGunther

No, I'm not asking the question so as to determine anything about how others view me or how I view myself. Its an abstract concept that really has nothing to do with me personally. The basic question I am asking is a simple one: As a general rule, if a car causes an accident, another car following them who does not collide with anything does not share responsibility for an accident. Why do so many people feel that the fact that the car following is a police car should cause the following car to share liability? Its that simple.[/QUOTE]


I cannot address wherever you are located but you are dead wrong in NYS - if a car causes an accident and is being chased by another car - for whatever reason - that second driver has a very good chance of being found partly responsible for the accident. Happens all the time, lawsuits all over the place. It's comparable negligence and the "blame" will be percentaged out.

If a person on a bicycle veers into traffic, car swerves to avoid and strikes another car - bicyclist will be found partially responsible; same with a dog that darts into traffic - owner is partially responsible.

I spend a great deal of time looking for "phantom" drivers who may or may not have caused the accident - or who may be made up on the spot!

I did read back and see that you have been a Police Officer since age 19 (I believe) but you get your information from "the many, many articles, TV shows, lawsuits, and the comments I have seen on the subject and also as a result of doing an Internet search for "high speed chases." Don't you have personal experience both in enforcement and testifying at tickets and lawsuits?

JudyKayTree you must have been on line when I posted that last answer, I was going to go back and edit a few things but you had already answered. Don't get me wrong, I didn't say there was no difference between running a stop sign and fleeing an eluding. What I was trying to say was that flashing lights do not have the power to push a gas pedal down. A conscious decision has to be made to do this. After I was a police officer, I also served as a court bailiff and saw many cases of this type. I heard a few people try to follow that line of "reasoning" and it was never accepted as a defense in court.

Yes. I understand that there are times when a non-striking vehicle can share liability. That's why I used the term "as a general rule." I also understand that in some places, police who are chasing fleeing and eluding drivers fall into this category. That's why I feel we need absolute liability laws for people who choose to do this. Police are "chasing" for a legitimate reason-to get the dangerous driver off the road. They are trained to do so. If they are not, they should not be engaged in a chase. The problem is not that police are trying to get them off the road, but that the fleeing driver chose to engage in fleeing and eluding in the first place. And since they caused the problem, they should be made to pay for all the damage that results, execpt, as the Supreme Court stated, police engage in something like "gross negligence". It seems simple enough to me.

The problem with being an accident investigator is that you only see the accident after it happened. You do not see the horror in the faces of the people who have to take evasive action (if they can) to avoid these thugs. When a bank robber goes into a bank, he only threatens the lives of a few people, let's say 20 as a max (many bank robbers don't like to enter a busy bank). If he shoots, the kinetic energy of the bullets he fires is much, much less than a car flying down the road in a chase. A person who flees and alludes can endanger the lives of a lot of people very quickly. And some chases can last for an hour or more! It's a fact, not an opinion.

Yes, I have personal experience in the area I am discussing. I was specifically asked why I felt many people felt police should share some liability in fleeing and alluding cases, and the sources I mentioned are the basis for the statements I made. As a police officer I didn't have much time to get involed in discussions of this type. I first became a police officer when I was 18-in the Air Force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimGunther

To really understand the horror...

---

*snicker*

Our city witnessed this not long ago when a police vehicle smashed through a woman's house and into her living room when the officer lost control during the chase. I can blame no one but the officer involved for his lack of skill.

I believe police and criminal alike are cut from the same psychological cloth with the result determined by advantage and opportunity. When I see chases on TV or otherwise, all I see are two unyielding egos flying down the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimGunther

As a general rule, if a car causes an accident, another car following them who does not collide with anything...

---

Fact: It takes two cars to have a chase.

Opinion: Consequently, both cars share responsibility for the ensuing mayhem. Your view of police and yourself as I read it sees the eluder as if they are in a vacuum and therefore solely responsible. I see two inviduals involved in a chase, either of which can choose to end the chase at anytime. Welcome to the court of public opinion, we make our own rules according to what we feel is just to those impacted by other's actions.

I will have have to admit, as you said, you are a liberal who hates police, and that philosophy has clouded your ability to read what I said and react objectively. Obviously, I was not referring to a case where a police vehicle hits something. I was specifically referring to the case where the offender hits something, not the police vehicle. If the police vehicle hits something, we are talking about another ballgame entirely!

If criminals and police are "cut from the same cloth" and the difference is based on "opportunity and advantage", what about the role of a person's concept of right and wrong? Isn't it obvious to you that flying down the road without regard to the safety of others is a horrible thing to do, whether anyone is chasing the driver or not? And isn't it equally obvious that something should be done about such a situation?

Again, don't get me wrong. Two egos ARE involved. One is the ego that is flying down the road, usually without professional training in high-spped driving, hell-bent to elude capture at the risk of everyone around them. The other ego is that of the person trying to stop them from the horror they are inflicting on every person they whiz past or slam into. I think any reasonable person can see a whopping difference in the two. The eluder should be responsible not because he is in a vacuum, but because he is the wrongdoer.

By the way. I never knew a police officer personally who came from an "advantaged" background. And too many people have died after a chase was called off because the wrongdoer kept on "fleeing." I can guarantee you that once the chase is over, the eluder does not become a friendly, courteous driver. Of the fleeing and eluding cases I was involed in, every one that resulted in an arrest revealled that the person had a long, nasty driving record.

These people are also generally not courteous enough to send in a change of address notification to the motor vehicle department. That's one reason taking their tag number and letting them go often doesn't work.

Yes and most officers ( all in many states) are required to take Emergancy Vechile Operation, they are trained in operating their car in higher speeds, they are taught how to handle skids and operating their car to standards the average person never has to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimGunther

I was specifically referring to the case where the offender hits something

---

The offender is less likely to hit something if he isn't being chased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimGunther

Isn't it obvious to you that flying down the road without regard to the safety of others is a horrible thing to do

---

Not as obvious as you would like. I don't believe that flying = automatic disregard for safety. In fact, many regular flyers are probably more focused on driving than the average motorist. I find crawling down the road in the left lane while chatting on the cell phone and trying to get your kids DVD to play equally horrible, if not more so, but those individuals are never a "safety" issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimGunther

And isn't it equally obvious that something should be done about such a situation?

---

Perhaps, but exacerbating the situation with a higher speed pursuit isn't the correct something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimGunther

I think any reasonable person can see a whopping difference in the two.

---

Us mindless folk have no need for reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimGunther

Of the fleeing and eluding cases I was involed in, every one that resulted in an arrest revealled that the person had a long, nasty driving record.

---

And yet, their comeuppance could only be delivered in the form of a high speed pursuit?


And so on, and so forth... 'til the end of time. We aren't going to agree.

We might if you would stop twisting the meaning of my words around. I did't say that flying=automatic disregard for safety, I said "flying down the road without regard to the safety of others". The difference should be obvious.

You think the "offender is less likely to hit something if he is not being chased." That's one of the reasons people bring up when they advocate limiting the ability of the police to get these people off the road. The problem is that as these people tend to be bad drivers in general. That's the point I was trying to make about seeing their driver's record. People often feel that the danger ends when the chase is over and the offender got away. What they don't realize is that the person who is willing to flee and allude is probably going to drive like a "jerk" the rest of the time and will probably hit someone eventually.

"Perhaps, but exacerbating the situation with a higher speed pursuit isn't the correct something."

What solution do you propose? People who are willing to do stuff like this don't leave the police much choice as to what can be done about it. Personally I think we need to come up with other measures as well, such as high-energy guns of some type that prevent the electrical system in a fleeing car from working. Until we have something like that, I see no solution to the problems these people cause except to catch them at the scene of the crime.

Helicopters and technology like FLUR have helped greatly in that the chase can be supervised from the air and anyone who bails can be spotted even at night, but someone on the ground still has to manually grab the driver.

"And yet, their comeuppance could only be delivered in the form of a high speed pursuit?"

What makes you think that's the only "comeuppance " they have ever received? A lot of these people have had their licenses suspended or revoked, have spent time in jail, or worse.

We may not agree, but as the laws now stand in most places, people recognize the need to catch these people as soon as possible in most circumstances.

[QUOTE=JimGunther] A conscious decision has to be made to do this. After I was a police officer, I also served as a court bailiff and saw many cases of this type. I heard a few people try to follow that line of "reasoning" and it was never accepted as a defense in court.

The problem with being an accident investigator is that you only see the accident after it happened. You do not see the horror in the faces of the people who have to take evasive action (if they can) to avoid these thugs. When a bank robber goes into a bank, he only threatens the lives of a few people, let's say 20 as a max (many bank robbers don't like to enter a busy bank). If he shoots, the kinetic energy of the bullets he fires is much, much less than a car flying down the road in a chase. A person who flees and alludes can endanger the lives of a lot of people very quickly. And some chases can last for an hour or more! It's a fact, not an opinion.


As I said - and keep saying - we are obviously in different States because this is most definitely not NYS Law and not the result of cases I have worked.

I fail to see what the look of "horror on the faces of the people who have to take evasive action" has to do with anything but thanks for explaining the problem with being an accident investigator.

[QUOTE=JimGunther]If criminals and police are "cut from the same cloth" and the difference is based on "opportunity and advantage", what about the role of a person's concept of right and wrong? Isn't it obvious to you that flying down the road without regard to the safety of others is a horrible thing to do, whether anyone is chasing the driver or not? And isn't it equally obvious that something should be done about such a situation?

By the way. I never knew a police officer personally who came from an "advantaged" background. And too many people have died after a chase was called off because the wrongdoer kept on "fleeing." I can guarantee you that once the chase is over, the eluder does not become a friendly, courteous driver. Of the fleeing and eluding cases I was involved in, every one that resulted in an arrest revealed that the person had a long, nasty driving record.


(1) Your passive/aggression comments add nothing to the discussion - "Isn't it obvious to you that flying down the road without regard to the safety of others is a horrible thing to do, whether anyone is chasing the driver or not? And isn't it equally obvious that something should be done about such a situation? " Do you really think anybody is going to say, "No, I don't think it is terrible to fly down the road without regard ..." and so forth or "No, I don't think anything should be done." Blanket questions of this type are senseless and accusatory.

(2) You never knew a police officer who came from an "advantaged" background. Would you explain what an "advantaged" background is and how that matters in this discussion?

(3) How many feeling and eluding cases have you been involved in - not the ones you've seen on reality shows? I thought you were Air Force Security (and I didn't know they are considered Police Officers) and a Court Bailiff (also didn't know they are Police Officers - thought they were some other arm of law enforcement).

[QUOTE=JudyKayTee
(3) How many feeling and eluding cases have you been involved in - not the ones you've seen on reality shows? I thought you were Air Force Security (and I didn't know they are considered Police Officers) and a Court Bailiff (also didn't know they are Police Officers - thought they were some other arm of law enforcement).[/QUOTE]


Feeling? I meant fleeing. Feeling is a whole different subject.

IF it were just another vehicle speeding, even tailgating, then they would not be responsible because the 'rule' would have been that you could have gradually slowed down or got into the other lane or pulled off the road and let him pass and therefore he did not cause the accident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

IF it were just another vehicle speeding, even tailgating, then they would not be responsible because the 'rule' would have been that you could have gradually slowed down or got into the other lane or pulled off the road and let him pass and therefore he did not cause the accident.

---

Absolutely agree - and in this case I would find Vehicle #1 (if it decided to outrace Vehicle #2) to be totally at fault.


I don't like to post long comments but you raise a lot of issues that need clarification so here we go.

“As I said - and keep saying - we are obviously in different States because this is most definitely not NYS Law and not the result of cases I have worked.”

I specifically stated that I recognize that there are places that require police to share in the liability caused by people who flee. The nature of my comments should indicate to you that I am making general statements about general concepts combined with the common sense notion that generalities always have exceptions.

“I fail to see what the look of "horror on the faces of the people who have to take evasive action" has to do with anything but thanks for explaining the problem with being an accident investigator.”

You missed my point entirely. I was responding to your statement that you don't need to watch police chase TV shows to learn about pursuits because you already know about them because you investigate accidents. My point was, and I stated it clearly, that as an accident investigator, you only see the accident after it happened. You don't experience the actual horror that is being inflicted on people as the offender flies down the road endangering people's lives. You only see the result, a snapshot of the event, I have seen the whole motion picture in real time. You haven't.

“Your passive/aggression comments add nothing to the discussion”

I have noticed that in threads of this type, people who disagree will sometimes get to the point where they start slinging insults, and it is obvious to me that you have reached that point. I'm simply responding with explanations to comments others have made. Isn't that what a thread of this type is all about?

"Isn't it obvious to you that flying down the road without regard to the safety of others is a horrible thing to do, whether anyone is chasing the driver or not? And isn't it equally obvious that something should be done about such a situation? " Do you really think anybody is going to say, "No, I don't think it is terrible to fly down the road without regard ..." and so forth or "No, I don't think anything should be done." Blanket questions of this type are senseless and accusatory.”

Again, you missed my point. My statement was made in response to Sclero's statement that “ I don't believe that flying = automatic disregard for safety” I simply explained that I didn't say that flying=automatic danger, my statement was, “flying down the road without regard to the safety of others". For me to say “isn't it obvious to you” certainly does mean that people of common sense will agree with the statement, but I made it because Scleros obviously thinks that police should not attempt to apprehend these people if they decide to flee.

"You never knew a police officer who came from an "advantaged" background. Would you explain what an "advantaged" background is and how that matters in this discussion?"

You will have to ask Scleros what he means by “advantaged”, he said something about the difference between police and offenders is that police come from an “advantaged” background. My statement was a response to this. It appears to me that you are reading my posts and not those of other people. My posts won't make sense if you don't read the comments I am responding to.

"How many feeling and eluding cases have you been involved in - not the ones you've seen on reality shows? I thought you were Air Force Security (and I didn't know they are considered Police Officers) and a Court Bailiff (also didn't know they are Police Officers - thought they were some other arm of law enforcement). "

Well it really doesn't matter as to how many chases I have been involved in other than the consideration that experience=knowledge on any given subject. Of course anyone is free to express their opinion on the subject whether they have been in a chase or not, just as you are doing.

Secondly, I said I first became a police officer in the Air Force when I was 18. I didn't say that that was the sum total of my experience and I certainly never said that a bailiff is the same thing as a police officer, only that I saw a lot of police chase cases as a bailiff, but only criminal cases, by the way, I never saw a civil case.

I didn't plan on burdening everyone with my work background, but since you asked, I will be courteous enough to respond. At the age of 18, I graduated from the 3275th Air Force Police Technical School Squadron at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. I began serving as a military police officer when I was 19. I had full arrest powers and, in some cases, “shoot on sight authority.” Today they are called Security Police and I assume that means they are more involved with security but I have been out of the military for a long time.

I served as a police officer in Washington DC, and a Maryland Special Police Officer involved in retail security and loss prevention management. I was also a parole and probation agent. I got involved in more arrests and chases when I was an SPO in Maryland that I ever did as a DC police officer, I would guess that if you consider all stages of involvement in chases, I was involved in about 12.

Since you made the statement that my "passive/agression" comments (of course you mean passive/agressive) add nothing to the discussion, I will burden you with one war story, maybe someone will find some humor or other value to it.

I was once chasing a fleeing felon on a Yamaha 350 four-speed trail/street bike that I owned at the time. There is no way an auto is going to get away from this thing in dry weather. The guy finally abandoned the auto and fled into a K Mart retail store. I don't know if you can imagine a trail bike blazing through the aisles of a KMart, but when the thug darted out of a fire exit, all sorts of bras were hanging on my mirrors.

I finally had to lay the bike down on the guy, who had some open warrants and a long record. After getting out of the hospital, he served some jail time and paid a lot of restitution to K Mart as part of his probation, which he eventually violated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimGunther

You missed my point entirely. I was responding to your statement that you don’t need to watch police chase TV shows to learn about pursuits because you already know about them because you investigate accidents. My point was, and I stated it clearly, that as an accident investigator, you only see the accident after it happened. You don’t experience the actual horror that is being inflicted on people as the offender flies down the road endangering people’s lives. You only see the end result, a snapshot of the event, I have seen the whole motion picture in real time.

I will only tell one war story, then I will shut up. I was once chasing a fleeing felon on a Yamaha 350 four-speed trail/street bike that I owned at the time. There is no way an auto is going to get away from this thing in dry weather. The guy finally abandoned the auto and fled into a K Mart retail store. I don't know if you can imagine a trail bike blazing through the aisles of a KMart, but when the thug darted out of a fire exit, all sorts of bras were hanging on my mirrors.

I finally had to lay the bike down on the guy, who had some open warrants and a long record. After getting out of the hospital, he served some jail time and paid alot of restitution to K Mart as part of his probation, which he eventially violated.

---

If only Police Officers who have actually participated in chases are allowed to have an opinion perhaps that should be the title of this thread - Thoughts By Police Officers Who Have Participated on High Speed Chases.

You blazed (your word) through the aisles of KMart on a "bike" and don't think that put people - employees, customers - at risk? Speaking of unnecessary Police chases -

As a side note, was story security involved and injured in this episode and later left the area and moved in with her daughter? I am aware of a very similar situation - not saying it's the same incident or the chase caused the injury but as I recall she tried to slam the door shut or something and got knocked down. The Workers Comp argument was whether her actions were "necessary." Ridiculous case and she eventually won but it was an uphill fight.

Yes, we are on opposite sides of the argument on this one on everything from what constitutes a Police Officer on down.

My husband was also Army Special Forces - or something - issued a gun, powers of arrest and told he had the right to arrest and/or shoot people. He was also 19. This was after about 15 minutes of training, 10 minutes of which involved learning to clean his weapon. Something frightening about the Government - but that's another story.

It took me longer to get a carry permit than it took him to get arrest/shoot to kill authority from the US!

"If only Police Officers who have actually participated in chases are allowed to have an opinion perhaps that should be the title of this thread - Thoughts By Police Officers Who Have Participated on High Speed Chases."

Yep, but you asked me how many chases I had personally been involved in, with the obvious implication that a person who hasn't been in a chase might not know much about it. People can know a lot about a topic without having been there or done it. That's what college is for, among other things.

"You blazed (your word) through the aisles of KMart on a "bike" and don't think that put people - employees, customers - at risk? Speaking of unnecessary Police chases -"

People would only be put at risk if they were in the aisles at a time and my behavior placed them in danger. I didn't say there were. I don't recall that there were. If you think a person who committed a felony is not worthy of being pursued and apprehended, I am not sure that you think anyone would be. I think a fair and objective person who was not at the scene would not be able to make the judgement that that particular chase was "unnecessary" based on the few facts presented.

"As a side note, was story security involved and injured in this episode and later left the area and moved in with her daughter? I am aware of a very similar situation - not saying it's the same incident or the chase caused the injury but as I recall she tried to slam the door shut or something and got knocked down. The Workers Comp argument was whether or not her actions were "necessary." Ridiculous case and she eventually won but it was an uphill fight."

I have no idea what you are referring to.

We are on opposite sides on such items as what constitutes a police officer? The Air Force, the D.C. government and the State of Maryland told me I was a police officer, and that is what I was, among other things. A police officer is commonly considered to be a person who has a sworn an oath, received training and is certified to arrest and detain people within the scope of the Fourth Amendment and other applicable laws. Do you disagree?

"My husband was also Army Special Forces - or something - issued a gun, powers of arrest and told he had the right to arrest and/or shoot people. He was also 19. This was after about 15 minutes of training, 10 minutes of which involved learning to clean his weapon. Something frightening about the Government - but that's another story."

I'm sorry, but that comment has too many contradictory statements in it to be believable. Basic military training takes weeks, special forces training takes even more time and the training is much more intense. It takes a lot longer than 10 minutes to learn to clean a weapon and military weapons training is always lengthy and intense. They want to be certain you know what you are doing when it comes to firing a weapon, I also saw this in civilian life.

[QUOTE=JimGunther]People would only be put at risk if they were in the aisles at a time and my behavior placed them in danger. I didn't say they were. I don't recall that there were. If you think a person who committed a felony is not worthy of being pursued and apprehended, I am not sure that you think anyone would be.


I would think as you raced through the store you had no idea who was going to step out in front of you so, no, I guess, no, I don't think people who committed a felony should be chased through KMart on a bike. If you can't run faster than the bad guys you should find another profession. If thinking people should not be chased through KMart by motorized vehicles means I don't think anyone who committed a felony should be pursued and apprehended - well, then I guess that what it means.

I don't see a connection between chasing someone through KMart and chasing some other felon some other place, but, hey, it's your scenario.

I don't know how to be any more clear about the KMart "pursuit" - was the security person injured in this incident? If so, I worked on it. If not, I didn't.

Next time I speak to my ex-husband I'll ask him about his military training; until then, he went in after high school (for the college tuition) and was a security person at 18 or 19. The rest - I'm just repeating what he told me.

In all this discussion, what goes unsaid is that the majority of people, when hearing and seeing police sirens behind them slow down and pull over.

I don't understand the rection of "I've got to get away" from the police and so will try to evade them.

Can anyone who thinks like this, answer this?

What makes you special that the law only applies to other people and not you?

"I would think as you raced through the store you had no idea who was going to step out in front of you”

The human eye can see almost 180 degrees from side to side, I'm not sure if you are talking about the “tunnel vision” syndrome that affects pursuing officers who are not trained to deal with it. I was trained to avoid the problem and had no difficulty seeing what was going on around me.

“ I don't think people who committed a felony should be chased through KMart on a bike”

As a general statement, police are allowed to use any reasonable means to apprehend fleeing felons. And these people are certainly willing to create situations that endanger people in the extreme so that they can get away, and in so doing stretch the limit of what can reasonably be done to catch them. In this case, if the store had had only one door, I would have simply waited for him to come out. But it is never that easy in such situations.

“If you can't run faster than the bad guys you should find another profession.”

I will have to admit that that is the most tasteless and mindless statement you have made so far. You don't honestly think there is some way to measure how fast these thugs run and then only hire people who can outrun them? It is a ridiculous notion.

"I don't see a connection between chasing someone through KMart and chasing some other felon some other place, but, hey, it's your scenario."

The connection is obvious-it's a high-speed chase, that's what this thread is about! Naturally its wasn't that fast inside a building, but that's what the conditions of the pursuit dictated at that point. That guy was really rolling before he ditched the car (it belonged to his girlfriend).

"I don't know how to be any more clear about the KMart "pursuit" - was the security person injured in this incident? If so, I worked on it. If not, I didn't."

What on earth are you talking about? You have no idea when or where this incident happened. And you think that if I tell you one fact about the case, you will be able to determine if you were involved? Actually, it was almost 20 years ago in Marlow Heights, MD and I can guarantee you that you had nothing to do with it. No one was injured but the fleeing felon.

I hope you understand that people like you, who are so quick to judge that police acted improperly even when you only know a few facts, and are willing to be in favor of measures that restrict police from getting dangerous people off the streets, are working in favor of lawlessness in this country. I have know plenty of thugs, especially when I was a probation officer, and they love people who hold the opinions you hold, and anyone else who is willing to make their jobs easier.

[QUOTE=JimGunther I hope you understand that people like you, who are so quick to judge that police acted improperly even when you only know a few facts, and are willing to be in favor of measures that restrict police from getting dangerous people off the streets, are working in favor of lawlessness in this country. I have know plenty of thugs, especially when I was a probation officer, and they love people who hold the opinions you hold, and anyone else who is willing to make their jobs easier.[/QUOTE]


I've posted this before and I'll post it again and then I'm out of here - nothing is getting resolved and the discussion has become petty. I spent my time working the border for the Feds so before you accuse "people like me who are so quick to judge" you should read this entire thread again and see that I actually agree with you in theory but not in practice. I know all about felons and smuggling and attempting to escape from the Police - all about it.

Your statement that plenty of thugs... "hold the opinions I hold" is WAY out of line and way off target to say nothing of insulting. You make yourself look small.

And as far as your infamous (in your mind, apparently) chase through KMart - I moved "here" from Baltimore.

“I've posted this before and I'll post it again and then I'm out of
here-nothing is getting resolved and the discussion has become petty.”

I will have to admit that I am glad to see you go. You have twisted
and misunderstood virtually everything I have said and have slung
insults like a teenager. You don't seem willing or able to carry on a
friendly discussion of the issues I raised when I opened this thread.

“Your passive/aggression comments add nothing to the discussion”

How could you be so rude and discourteous as to talk to anyone like
that? You are obviously not aware that free speech, whether you agree
with the content or not, is of great value in this country and many,
many people have died to keep it that way.

“Would you explain what an advantaged background is and how that
matters in this discussion?"

Again, that is a pretty rude way to talk to someone who didn't raise
that issue in the first place, but was responding to Scleros, who
raised it. But you missed that point.

“If you can't run faster than the bad guys you should find another
profession.”

It is obvious to me that a rational person would make never make such
a mindless statement.

“I don't think anyone who committed a felony should be pursued and
apprehended.”

Again, its irrational to think that we should just let these people
go. Can't you imagine what would happen if persons inclined to commit
serious crimes knew they could not be pursued?

“Yes, we are on opposite sides of the argument on this one on
everything from what constitutes a Police Officer on down.”

“I actually agree with you in theory but not in practice.”

Contradictory statements like that smack of a person who has some
problems with rational thinking.

“I know all about felons and smuggling and attempting to escape from
the police-all about it.”

I think that pretty much sums up the reason that I am glad to see you
go. Even U.S. Supreme Court justices have law clerks to help them deal
with criminal and civil cases because it is obviously impossible for
anyone to know everything about any given legal topic. Anyone who claims to
know everything about such things is of course, wrong, and secondly, is
making a claim they can't rationally substantiate.