From: Robert Comer 

This is one of those rare instances where we agree on something. :)


--
Bob Comer



On Tue, 01 May 2007 11:43:55 -0400, Gary Britt
 wrote:

>So they got one right.  You have a problem with this ruling.  It was 8 to 1
>wasn't it?  Nothing unusual, it merely says that the lives of fleeing felons
>are not as valuable to society as the lives of the innocent they threaten to
>kill with their illegal behavior.  Running is illegal, all the traffic laws
>they break while running are illegal, the underlying reason why they are
>running is illegal.  They voluntarily waive their right to be kept safe from
>harm by endangering others with the criminal/illegal behavior.
>
>The idiot relatives of the felon had sued for MONEY, and the Supremes said
>we don't reward felons because they get hurt during the commission of their
>crimes.  Nothing surprising except the people who are surprised by this.
>
>Gary
>
>Rich Gauszka wrote:
>> Good - far too many of these idiots fleeing and injuring innocent people.
>>
>> http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0501/p25s01-usju.html
>>
>> In an important ruling defining Fourth Amendment protections against
>> unreasonable searches and seizures in the context of high-speed police
>> chases, the US Supreme Court on Monday gave a green light to law enforcement
>> to use violent force to stop fleeing suspects who pose a substantial and
>> immediate risk of serious physical injury to others.
>>
>> "A police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous
high-speed car chase
>> that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth
>> Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious
>> injury or death," writes Justice Antonin Scalia in the
majority opinion.
>>
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5