Isn't it the criminal's fault?
2007-04-25 09:45:31 · 12 answers · asked by Redeemed 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4746008.html
2007-04-25 09:51:21 · update #1
the term is called "deep pockets". suing a person/family of a criminal will normally result in finding they have no assets, but the police dept and the village have money and great insurance. if you can convince someone that the police has a small role in the death, then you just made a lot of money.
most departments have strict pursuit rules. if you are chasing someone for tinted windows while grade school kids are being let out, the pursuit will be called off by the supervisor. if its a felon running who is armed and dangerous, the story changes. what supervisors look at is if the benefit of the arrest outweighs the risks present. if the risks are low then the pursuit may continue.
therefore if someone dies as a result of the chase, it will be looked at why the pursuit was continued, what are the present factors (speeds, traffic, time of day, etc.)
Our society is always looking to blame someone. if the police are involved, then the police will always get blamed. the end result may show the police not at fault, but the media will play up the wrongdoing of the police.
2007-04-25 11:05:19 · answer #1 · answered by officer 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the investigations now underway by several agencies finds the officers at fault, those officers should face justice. I saw the video and I don't doubt for one second that they will be held legally responsible. However, I have a problem with your unfounded insinuation that all officers would act this way. That is simply not true. Also, I suggest you check your facts a little closer. Under most circumstances the use of Tazers has been proved to be less harmful than guns or batons. A baton could strike a protruding blood vessel and cause a hemorrhage or stroke. Pepper spray could make the recipient fall down and strike his head on the ground causing a concussion or even death. Open your mind and look at the whole picture ... this is a singular incident that ended in tragedy. I believe that they did wrong, but I also believe that they are innocent until proved guilty. You have that right; are you denying it to them??
2016-05-18 21:49:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. However, the criminal has no money - the government does. So, blame the one with the money - and if you win, you get money.
It is very unfortunate when an innocent bystander looses their life during a chase. That is why agencies have mandates concerning pursuit policy. Officers usually only pursue when the public would still be at risk whether he/she pursued or not.
However, the bottom line is that fault is determined by money.
2007-04-25 10:01:48 · answer #3 · answered by tnmack 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because police officers are trained to protect the community. Excessive force is one of the main areas that are prohibited unless necessary. As a copper you are trained to do whatever you can to bring that person in alive and salvage the life of the perpetrator.
That's why OJ was going like 10 MPH when he was being chased by the police but they never opened fire on him to attained him
2007-04-25 09:59:23 · answer #4 · answered by my_dizzy_lizzy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It has to do with excessive force. If the police can prove they did everything within their power to protect all involved, they are in the clear, but with violations in the past and police brutality, the legal system has to allow for people to file charges against the police.
If the police can demonstrate they took reasonable precautions, they're fine, if not, well... check the source article for a story on topic.
2007-04-25 09:57:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If someone is running from the police to avoid a traffic fine and he runs over your kid, I am sure you would blame the police. Two local teenagers unfortunaly died that way. Very sad and unessary deaths. They should still be alive.
2007-04-25 11:05:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I can see if from both sides. The police don't want to give up and let the person get away. .but the criminal may not stop driving dangerously if not being chased either.
2007-04-25 09:51:22 · answer #7 · answered by James Dean 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is no point in blaming the dead. Besides, the police (read government) has way more money and they can be sued for wrongful death. Money, money money, it makes the world go round, nothing else matters. Personally I would blame the media.
2007-04-25 09:57:37 · answer #8 · answered by P.A.M. 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because they owe first allegiance to the public. Killing a bystander is not an acceptable option in the pursuit of a law breaker. We don't need police ready to kill us because their priorities are skewed.
It is bad enough they hide to screw us out of money for ridiculous laws (like going 5 mph over the speed limit at midnight with no one else on the road!), because the town has been stopped form raising taxes.
2007-04-25 09:54:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
If there wasn't a chase, would it have resulted in a death?. Sorry, had to answer your question with a question.
2007-04-25 09:52:28 · answer #10 · answered by CGIV76 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋