home

Liability for High Speed Chases

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:42:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

As the number of high speed police chases ending in death continues to grow, a bipartisan group of California legislators is proposing legislation that would eliminate immunity from damages for police officers who engage in a reckless pursuit. California law enforcement groups prefer to increase the penalties that can be imposed upon fleeing drivers, a proposal that, by itself, isn't likely to solve the problem.

"I want something that is actually going to save lives," said state Sen. Sam Aanestad, who sponsored a failed bill last year that would have limited police immunity in accidents from high-speed chases. "Probably the worst way to catch someone is by chasing them."

Since 1987, police have had what a state appeals court in 2002 termed a "get-out-of-liability-free" law even if police violate their own department's pursuit policy.

Aanestad is naming his bill after 15-year-old Kristie Priano of Chico, who was killed in 2002 when her family's minivan was struck by an unlicensed 15-year-old who was fleeing police after taking her mother's car without permission. The victim's mother, Candy Priano argues that there was no need for a pursuit because police knew where the driver lived.

California police chased more than 7,000 drivers in 2003. The chases resulted in 58 deaths, including 18 innocent individuals who weren't involved in the pursuit.

< Bolton Nominated as UN Ambassador | Milwaukee Police Accused of Violent Attack >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Liability for High Speed Chases | 49 comments (49 topical)
    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    So the state murdered 18 people and its ok? so why "our" we in Iraq? its ok to kill innocent people here but bad in other places? you still have the dead. stop mass murder for the delight of the cops/gang, members, who have so much fun doing the chase. but the state can alway say its an accident and walk away.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:12:34 PM EST
    "Probably the worst way to catch someone is by chasing them." - Sen. Sam Aanestad What a dumbass.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:19:44 PM EST
    You have a point, troll??

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    Shouldn't the liability be on the lawbreaking individual who instigates the high speed chase to begin with?

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:28:51 PM EST
    I've stated before, since the inevntion of cb radios, there is no need to high speed chase.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#6)
    by Beck on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:29:22 PM EST
    A fleeing driver is unlikely to change his behavior due to increased penalties for his actions, but a police officer is likely to change his behavior due to the elimination of immunity. It seems like increased penalties are not a deterent, but the threat of civil action would be a deterent.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:29:35 PM EST
    ...no need for a pursuit because police knew where the driver lived.
    ...chases resulted in 58 deaths, including 18 innocent individuals who weren't involved in the pursuit.
    no need for a pursuit, innocent bystanders become victims, more often than necessary the reality. one word helicopter(aka "ghettoBirds")

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:35:12 PM EST
    Shouldn't the liability be on the lawbreaking individual who instigates the high speed chase to begin with?
    probably, but it's no deterrent, a deterrent is needed, thus the responsibility should be placed on a responsible person, the officer, sucks but somebody has to be rational in these situations.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:40:09 PM EST
    clarity: that would be the officer being responsibe to not engage in high-speed chases.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:47:13 PM EST
    The "news copter on the scene" with thier sensationalistic color-commentary turn these events all too often into some kind of tabloid spectacle with cops and perps in starring roles. A "Natural Born Killers" kind of thing.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    In Michigan the law on this issue changed in 2000 when the Supreme Court ruled that the statutory language "the proximate cause" actually means "the proximate cause" not "a proximate cause"like every other form of tort in Michigan. In essence what that means is that if the vehicle fleeing the police crashes into and injures another person there is no recourse against the State for negligence. Negligence only now exists if the police vehicle itself causes the injury or death. Prior to that time there were numerous law suits over the carnage caused by police chases. I was able to secure virtually any police chief in the nation to testify about the senselessness of police chases. The number of deaths and injuries began to decline as department after department began to impliment stringent rules regarding same. Since the Supreme Court of Michigan changed the proximate cause requirement the number of deaths and injuries have increased significantly. Regulating how police chases begin and end can and will save lives. Without litigation as the stick the chases will continue and the carnage will increase.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    My heart goes out to the 18 people who have died innocently in these senseless chases. The father of a friend of mine (a police officer) died by getting hit by a train during chase. As for the drivers who died while trying to evade a stop or arrest: Thanks for thinning out the gene pool.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#13)
    by Patrick on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    Perhaps a lawyer out there could tell me how the California Legislature plans to remove an immunity that is granted by court decision?

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#14)
    by nolo on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:38:01 PM EST
    Generally speaking, legislatures have full power to get rid of legal rules set by courts except in one area, and that is the area of constitutional interpretation. Even then, a court's interpretation of the constitution can be overruled by amending the constitution, which in some states is pretty easy to do. But with the garden variety non-constitutional stuff, legislatures can change court-made law, and they do it all the time.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#15)
    by nolo on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:40:28 PM EST
    Also, when the legislature passes a law, the clear language of the law prevails over whatever a court may have done before. It also controls what a court may do later. Only when there are sufficiently important constitutional issues at stake can a court essentially "trump" the legislature.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    "Posted by dontMatter: "one word helicopter(aka "ghettoBirds") That's a repugnant usage, reminiscent of the R King scandal in LA, when it was revealed, to public disgust, that the LAPD helicopter squad had as their 'patch' (cloth patches were all the rave back in those Olympic days) a vulture perched on an outhouse. (This kind of slur was accompanied by police chief Gates' failure to deploy ANY police when the riots began, taking a 'let it burn' attitude that cost him his job, and cost a lot of civilians their lives. Adequate police activity may have prevented the riots, or at least limited their damage). People have a right not to have police helicopters circling their residences at 3 AM every night. The de-ghettoization of residential areas is a major purpose of gov't, and disasters like the R King riots have taught some lessons about the value of respect.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 03:37:47 PM EST
    Once again Boca brings up "The father of a friend of mine (a police officer) died by getting hit by a train during chase. " Talk about cleaning out the gene pool, how stupid do you have to be to get blindsided by a train? Those track thingies are a dead giveaway.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:06:14 PM EST
    Sailor, there are hundreds of thousands of uncontrolled crossings in the U.S. During a highspeed chase with sirens and lights, a train would be hard to spot. In many rural areas one might cross the train tracks several times in a few miles. And not all trains are scheduled. It is simply not possible to drive at high speed in such areas and not take a risk at each crossing. Police officers die from spinouts on ice...should they not drive in winter? The whole point is that these chases are dangerous, and need to be restricted for the safety of the public and the cops.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:48:38 PM EST
    PiLA - I was responding to the comment "As for the drivers who died while trying to evade a stop or arrest: Thanks for thinning out the gene pool."

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:53:05 PM EST
    What were tiger teeth invented for?

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#21)
    by cp on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 07:20:30 PM EST
    this is something that continues to evade my understanding. with the advent of radio, helicoptors, night vision optics, etc., the only purpose a high-speed chase serves is to get the participants adrenalin going. unless you are out in the mojave desert, there is always back-up available. i have yet to hear a good rationale for a high-speed chase today. usually, the police just got all excited, completely forgot their training, and took off after the vehicle. the police are supposed to be the highly trained professionals, licensed by the state. apparently, unlike the rest of us licensed professionals, they bear no personal liability when their actions, or inaction, results in loss. if i don't follow the rules of my profession, i can be sued, or worse. seems like the police should be subject to the same level of personal responsibility.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#22)
    by Richard Aubrey on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 07:39:23 PM EST
    cp. You presume the chase rules are the rules you prefer. Cops following the real rules are generally not in any jeopardy. How many jurisdictions have choppers available? We know the cost of chasing. What is the cost of not chasing? In Newark, it was a rash of car thefts, including even some police cars. There may have been--I do not recall--some violent carjackings in the new and improved mix. There must be a cost to not chasing. Different circumstances mean different results. Anybody know what those are? Or care? If they resulted in more criminals getting away with crimes, would that be a good thing? Dumb question around here.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:45:05 AM EST
    "In Newark, it was a rash of car thefts, including even some police cars." Oh, so that's worth the LIVES of children hit by speeding police cars. I see your point, Richard. They're criminals NOT getting away with the crime of being innocent.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 03:24:37 AM EST
    Two Denver cops I know say that their chase policy is working really well when it is adhered to. They aren't supposed to engage in a chase unless the suspect is armed and there is a reasonable suspicion that he or she has just committed a violent crime or is about to. Even then, they can only continue a chase more than a short distance with approval from a commanding officer. It works because as soon as they flip on their lights, their dash cam starts recording. They only have to get close to the fleeing car for a few moments to get a permanent record of the tag number, color, make, and model of the vehicle. Dispatch then sends the information to the laptop computers mounted in nearly every patrol car, and in more cases than not the car and its driver are picked up within a couple of hours. It's the cases where the cops don't adhere to the policy that are nauseating. I remember a recent chase where an SUV ended up plowing into the side of a house up near MLK and York. That was, I believe, a case where the chase policy either wasn't followed or at least wasn't followed closely enough. Cops in general just need constant re-training in safe driving. My sister got t-boned by a Jeffco sheriff's deputy who pulled out of a parking lot at high speed at night with no headlights, let alone red and blue lights and siren. He tried to pin the accident on her, but a Lakewood cop witnessed the whole thing and, shock of all shocks, backed her up rather than the fellow cop.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 07:10:26 AM EST
    The way I see it, the only loser in a ban on high speed chases are the producers of "Cops" and "Wildest Police Chases". To save some lives, it's well worth it.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 07:33:21 AM EST
    So if the cops are banned from chasing criminals when they run, don't think more of them will?

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 07:50:30 AM EST
    "Cops" and "Wildest Police Chases".
    oddly they never show the "perp" getting away, and the police are never shown wrecking havoc. oh, but they are presented via faux.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 07:51:24 AM EST
    Gerry - Get with the program - we're discussing the problematics of high speed vehicular pursuits through densely populated areas. Kdog - You got it. This is turning into show-time for Starsky and Hutch wannabes.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 08:00:38 AM EST
    I never said don't chase Gerry, just don't risk lives high-speed chasing. Get the tag #, send a unit to the suspects home, radio ahead for a roadblock, lay a spike strip, follow the suspect from a distance at reasonable speeds, use radios to communicate the current location, etc. Even if the cops have to wait for the suspect to run out of gas, he/she will be caught. As the saying goes, there are lots of ways to skin a goose, let's do it the safest way.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 08:01:47 AM EST
    Many states and municipalities have policies against high-speed chases. They catch criminals too.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#31)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 08:04:50 AM EST
    Jondee, So your advocating this restrictions only in populated areas? In other areas, where helicopters, in-car computers and cameras, and back-up "Right around the Corner" are not the norm, can we still chase 'em like they do in Dukes of Hazzard? The problem with making one state law for all situations is they can never build enough flexibility into it to be workable in "ALL" situations. BFE California is much different than South Central, is much different than Simi Valley, is much different than......you get it? One state law for all chases will not be a workable solution, there needs to be local control based on local needs. Besides, per the discussions in here about cameras at intersections, what good is a license plate? We all know that someone else was driving whenever there is a violation. Why is this suddenly good enough for chases? Is it possibly a chance to limit police power (Chases) vs. increasing police presence (Cameras), is the reason for the hypocracy?

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 08:28:27 AM EST
    No one said go to the house of the registered owner and start busting heads with billy clubs. Seems a good place to start the investigation, no? Find out who is driving. That is just in case the guy does get away, if the radios, spike strips, and roadblocks don't work. Patrick, would it kill the police to limit their power to save a few innocent lives?

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 09:18:54 AM EST
    "Get the tag #, send a unit to the suspects home, radio ahead for a roadblock, lay a spike strip, follow the suspect from a distance at reasonable speeds..." If its a stolen car, who cares about the tag # and the address? As for the roadblocks, on a highway, perhaps. In the heavily populated urban area I was told we are talking about, it seems obvious that eliminating the cops ability to chase down suspects will only INCREASE the likelihood that a suspect will run. Two turns later and the patrol car following at a "reasonable speed" is gone. Quick run in the closest place where there is heavy pedestrian traffic and the perp is probably gone as well, provided he or she hadn't killed themselves and possibly someone else in the process.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 10:16:05 AM EST
    If somebody's going to run, they're going to run. Reasonable chase restrictions are in place in most cities to prevent panicked 16 year olds with a broken tail light from careening down I-5 at 120 MPH during rush hour on the shoulder on nothing but bare rims, eventually catching fire and crashing into a car full of nuns and innocent children--you know, the average scene from Wildest Police Chases. The restrictions are already in place. The proposal is to give them some teeth, because right now the cops face little or no consequences for escalating a misdemeanor (fleeing from police) to tens of thousands of dollars of damage and dozens of lives risked. If a suspect is an imminent threat to the public, then by all means the cops should go after the suspect. But if you ever listen to the back story on most of the "Wildest Police Chases", it's usually John Bunnell saying 'if the stupid kids hadn't run, officer so-and-so would have let them go with just a warning. But now, after a 20 minute chase of escalating desperation ends in tragedy, they're going to jail for attempted murder.'

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 11:20:39 AM EST
    Well said Michael. Gerry, maybe I wasn't clear (in fact I see that I wasn't). If someone is mowing down innocent people at intersections, shooting out the drivers window, the police doing whatever necessary to take them down is understandable and necessary. High speed chasing someone running from a traffic stop, or in a stolen car, or from a drug bust...the risk of a high speed chase is not justified.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 11:28:00 AM EST
    MD pretty sound logic as usual. the wignuts are always right, especially in their minds, absent fact and common sense.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#37)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:14:01 PM EST
    Ahhh Michael Ditto, Logical again.... Wait, except that most departments already do that, he even says so himself. How many of the 18 bystander deaths were the result of pursuits that would have happened anyway, even with the new law in effect? We don't know. If a suspect is an imminent threat to the public, What about cases where we don't know? What then? Should we still chase, and if we make a judgement call and something bad happens as a result, should we be immune then? What about people who get a 3rd strike felony because special interest groups got the penalities jacked up for what normally would have been a misdemeanor pursuit. (BTW Not all pursuits are misdemeanors)? Are you going to support that? My point is it's impossible to tailor a law to every conceivable set of cicumstances. This decision should be at a local level. What Michael Ditto does is make a great point regarding perception. What you see on TV is not the reality of how it's done most polace. You're seeing edited tape with effects added to make it the look the most exciting. I can't speak for every agency, but my agency frequently uses excerpts from those shows to show how NOT to do the job.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:53:23 PM EST
    Gerry Owen actually asks a few questions that come up whenever the high-speed chase issue is revisited. They are worth discussing here, if only to discredit them. First, Gerry asks:
    Shouldn't the liability be on the lawbreaking individual who instigates the high speed chase to begin with?
    IMHO, this isn't logical. Sure, if you're prey and you see a lion, running will, in fact, instigate a chase as the lion responds to biological signals. However, as long as the officers have the mental and physical capacity to decide who and when to chase/shoot, etc., they are the instigators of the chase. In other words, panicking in a confrontation situation and running - a natural reaction should not by default carry a death sentence. Secondly, he says:
    So if the cops are banned from chasing criminals when they run, don't think more of them will?
    That's assuming, Gerry, that a person in that situation makes choices instead of reacting less consciously. The old "free will" thing. I find it hard to imagine that people in general, and especially those who have problems controlling their impulses re: crimes are going to make rational decisions in a pursuit situation. Your additional comment is:
    Two turns later and the patrol car following at a "reasonable speed" is gone. Quick run in the closest place where there is heavy pedestrian traffic and the perp is probably gone as well, provided he or she hadn't killed themselves and possibly someone else in the process.
    This doesn't mean that the "perp" has "gotten away" with the crime, even though they have "gotten away" for the moment. Now, in some scenarios, like say for example, the cops have come to the scene of a mall shooting where an armed psychopath is shooting everyone in sight. There is reasonable expectation that this criminal will continue to kill and therefore, the risk of pursuit to the public is justified in the interests of their safety. However, in the case of your average car thief, junkie, or burglar, or even where personal injury has occurred, the criminal trying to get away is much more likely to hide than to commit acts of violence, let 'em go. The threat to public safety is not as high as that posed by the persuing police. Now if you want to change the law to say that resisting arrest is an occasion for justifiable homicide (since by trying to get away the perp has "instigated" the use of deadly force), then give it a shot and good luck. But, as evidenced by the 14 year old who was recently shot while evading L.A. (?) cops, this may have consequences far beyond what "public safety" dictates. Interested in what you think, Gerry.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#39)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Mfox, I disagree with almost all of your points, but this one really stuck out.. "However, in the case of your average car thief, junkie, or burglar, or even where personal injury has occurred, the criminal trying to get away is much more likely to hide than to commit acts of violence, let 'em go. The threat to public safety is not as high as that posed by the persuing police." How do you know what the criminal's "natural reaction" is going to be. You're making a huge assumption. Just so you're aware, the same assumption I once made that later resulted in a death. I chose to end a pursuit, the suspect (A parole violator) later that evening murdered a woman to steal her car. I won't make that mistake again.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:35:27 PM EST
    "The threat to public safety is not as high as that posed by the persuing police." My point is you still have a vehicle being driven at a high rate of speed wether the cop continues to pursue them or not. If the police cannot chase a vehicle if it accelerates beyond a certain speed, the obvious choice for someone not wanting to go to jail is to do just that. The danger is that more will try to run and take that chance they can get away- a lot of whom are drunks and junkies (who shouldn't be driving in the first place).

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:57:22 PM EST
    One further factor needs mentioning: Three Strikes law, which is now being recognized as yet another the HUGE winger disaster. Set up a system where even a trivial crime threatens to put someone away for life, and you have a good incentive to do anything to escape. California is fairly effective at catching criminals. But we are a car culture, so preventing unnecessary risks in the pursuit of justice resonates. Note again that this is a bipartisan bill, probably supported by the police chiefs.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#42)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:24:48 PM EST
    3 strikes = Winger disaster? Where are you coming from? You should look at the voting results. California's a blue state with more than her fair share of liberals, and the measure passed by 2/3rds. Perhaps you meant left winger, but it's still not a disaster. But I digress, people were still killed in pursuits prior to 3-strikes. Do the stats show that this law has increased the number of pursuits? Or is there another cause?

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    Mfox panicking in a confrontation situation and running - a natural reaction So, according to you, the prey (criminals) are only running from the big bad lion (cops) because that is their natural instinct. Nice. Did it ever occur to you that we live in a society where the natural instinct is NOT to run from the cops? Innocent people do not run from cops. You win the 2005 Criminal Apologist of the year award.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:28:49 PM EST
    a trivial crime threatens to put someone away for life Can you show us in the 3 strikes law statutes the "trivial crimes" that threaten to put someone away for life?

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:58:13 PM EST
    What was the parole violators name, I think someone should verify the veracity of that story.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#46)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 04:24:37 PM EST
    Paul in LA. Stay there. But I digress. Show me saying that the cost of not chasing--car theft--was too high and we should continue to chase and thus kill kids. You (most all) are so predictable. I may send TL an email when I think somebody is going to get the knee jerk, no-think thing going. I may even refine it as to who exactly it will be. My point is that there will be different results from not chasing. What will those be? Has anybody thought of that? BTW, I didn't say more car thefts was the only result in Newark--I did reference possible carjackings with violence--and, Newark being considerably smaller than California, on a per-population basis, if multiplied by population, we might find a cost of some severity. My suggestion is to not avoid thinking about it. But here I am talking to lefties....

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#47)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 04:26:54 PM EST
    JL, Probably not gonna happen here since my identity would then also be revealed as my decision was criticized in the local paper. As I'm sure you can understand, I choose to only reveal limited information about who I am. But go ahead and post your home number and I'll give you a call with the information. It's public record, and accurate.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#48)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 07:09:29 PM EST
    Patrick. It doesn't matter if it isn't true. Around here, the Rather standard rules. "Fake, but accurate" will do. Now that I think about it, though, even proving you're completely accurate, won't make any difference.

    Re: Liability for High Speed Chases (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 09:28:56 PM EST
    mfox- the 2:35 post was me- I forgot to take credit or accept blame (busy day at work). I truly believe the ones who run now will still run if the cops are not allowed to chase them, and I think more will run if the police are restricted from chasing them. The net result will be more cars moving at a high rate of speed wiping out innocents or themselves- since there would now be that fighting chance to get away. I agree the majority would be caught anyway- but with more man hours being used (yet another excuse to raise the sales taxes and bloat budgets), but I think the end result would be counter productive to the goal of reducing the threat these chases cause.

    Liability for High Speed Chases | 49 comments (49 topical)