?

Log in

The · Psychohistorian


Eight out of nine supreme court justices ...

Recent Entries · Archive · Friends · Profile

* * *
... have never passed on a two lane road.

At least, that's the conclusion I have to reach after watching the following video presented as evidence in Scott v Harris. The video is taken from the dashboard cameras of two police cars, in pursuit of a speeder who tries to get away. The question is whether the driving is dangerous enough to justify the police bumping the suspect's car off the road, turning him into a quadriplegic. The court is shocked, even frightened, by what is going on:

"Far from being the cautious and controlled driver the lower court depicts, what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury."

So I watch the video, hoping to see an exciting Hollywood style car chase. I see the suspect signal, pull out into the left lane, pass, then pull back into the right lane. Boring. Oncoming cars ... will the suspect try to squeeze between them and the slower moving car ahead of him? No, nothing so interesting; he waits for them to go by before passing. Later on, he does pass in the presence of oncoming traffic - but only because there's a convenient third middle lane he can pass in. He pulls out into an abandoned shopping center ... a second cruiser goes past, turns around to head him off, almost rams hims, but he manages to avoid a head on collision with only a minor dent. Okay, that was a little exciting, but it wasn't the suspect doing something dangerous, it was the policeman driving the wrong way on a ramp.

I keep waiting for the interesting part. I haven't even seen any innocent bystanders, except for cars safely pulled over for the police sirens. Something here must be "frightening", right? But no. It keeps going like this - pretty much normal two lane rural driving - until the end. The only frightening part is when the police finally bump the guy off the road, and the second police car almost hits the first one.

It has to be admitted that some of the stuff the policemen do isn't so safe - unlike the suspect, they don't always pull back into the right lane after passing, and the guy who drove the wrong way on the ramp probably owes his life to the suspect's quick reactions - but I come away in rare agreement with Justice Stevens:

"A jury could certainly conclude that those motorists were exposed to no greater risk than persons who take the same action in response to a speeding ambulance, and that their reactions were fully consistent with the evidence that respondent, though speeding, retained full control of his vehicle."

Keep in mind this case is at the summary judgement stage: the decision is not whether or not the plaintiff - here the suspect that was turned into a quadriplegic - wins, but just whether or not he gets to sue at all. If he does, he still has to get the jury to decide the facts in his favor - namely, that his actions in the chase didn't justify deadly force on the part of the police.

But no, despite contrary findings by both lower courts and by Stevens, the majority concludes that "no reasonable jury" could find that the suspect was driving safely enough not to merit deadly force. I guess none of the judges on either of the lower courts nor Stevens are reasonable. Okay, I normally agree in the case of Stevens, but all of them? I think it's more likely that, living in the less populated south rather than DC, they just happened to know how to drive on two lane roads.

My own conclusion is that this videotape just goes to prove yet again that the folks who wrote the Constitution were pretty sharp in requiring that juries, rather than judges, decide the facts.

On the plus side, recent opinions have been better written than the ones I complained about a while back. Well, the ones which rely on logic rather than videos have, at least.

The opinion:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1631.ZS.html

The lower court's summary of the facts, which seem to me to describe the videotape perfectly:

"[T]aking the facts from the non-movant’s viewpoint, [respondent] remained in control of his vehicle, slowed for turns and intersections, and typically used his indicators for turns. He did not run any motorists off the road. Nor was he a threat to pedestrians in the shopping center parking lot, which was free from pedestrian and vehicular traffic as the center was closed. Significantly, by the time the parties were back on the highway and Scott rammed [respondent], the motorway had been cleared of motorists and pedestrians allegedly because of police blockades of the nearby intersections."
Tags:
* * *
* * *
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 02:15 pm (UTC), dcltdw commented:
I'm a litle bit confused.

Is the point of the Supreme Court justices that the responding officer was operating his vehicle in a reckless manner such that it endangered people around him, or that the suspect's actions did not merit deadly force?

I'd say that the responding officer was driving correctly.

Whether or not it merited ramming the other car, that I can't comment on -- I don't know enough about law enforcement and the risks/outcomes of high-speed chases.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 02:47 pm (UTC), kirisutogomen replied:
My understanding is that the question is whether the suspect was driving in such an obviously insane way that there could be no debate, i.e., that all reasonable people would naturally agree that the suspect's actions merited deadly force.

If it is at all questionable, that's a question of fact, which in our system is supposed to be the job of juries, not judges. So if you need knowledge about the risks/outcomes of high-speed chases in order to make a judgment, that makes it a question of fact, and the Supremes should leave it to the jury.

I've just realized that what may have confused you was the word "respondent." That's a legal term and does not mean the responding officer. In this case it means the suspect. He's the "respondent" in that he's responding to the appeal filed by the cop.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 02:51 pm (UTC), dcltdw replied:
Oooh. Now to re-read.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 03:12 pm (UTC), dcltdw replied:
Ohhh, okay, this is starting to make more sense.

So let's see... Cael writes:

My understanding is that the question is whether the suspect was driving in such an obviously insane way that there could be no debate, i.e., that all reasonable people would naturally agree that the suspect's actions merited deadly force.

and that leads me to juxtapose that next to Justice Stevens' remarks:

"A jury could certainly conclude that those motorists were exposed to no greater risk than persons who take the same action in response to a speeding ambulance, and that their reactions were fully consistent with the evidence that respondent, though speeding, retained full control of his vehicle."

I see two things wrong in there.

A jury could certainly conclude that those motorists were exposed to no greater risk than persons who take the same action in response to a speeding ambulance

The respondent is not trained in high speed driving, whereas EMTs are.

respondent, though speeding, retained full control

That's internally inconsistent. You can't be speeding as an untrained driver and retain full control.

You may be lucky and not lose control, but that's different.

Hmm, and so (provided I'm reading this right, which I am not at all convinced I'm putting these pieces together properly -- thanks for the help!), the Court says

"Far from being the cautious and controlled driver the lower court depicts, what we see on the video more closely resembles a Hollywood-style car chase of the most frightening sort, placing police officers and innocent bystanders alike at great risk of serious injury."

I would not describe the chase as Hollywood-style; that seems like fishing for an emotional response. I'll agree that the driver is neither cautious nor controlled (see above). Were police officers and innocent bystanders placed at great risk? Yes, no question: it wasn't a divided highway.

To me, I'll freely admit that this kind of high speed maneuvering happens routinely -- but I don't see how that's relevant to a legal opinion. Nrr, text sucks because I'm losing nuance: I'm not trying to say "dude, you're wrong, pshaw!", but rather, "I don't know how common practices are supposed to influence legal rulings".
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 05:38 pm (UTC), greyautumnrain replied:
speeding verses control
That's internally inconsistent. You can't be speeding as an untrained driver and retain full control.

Umm, says who? What is so magical about the posted speed limit that you are not in control of your vehicle the moment you are over it?

Take route 2, a road that I am sure we are all familiar with. During morning rush hour I know from experience that going heading away from the city most cars are going over 70 miles per hour. The guys in the right lane might be doing 80 miles per hour, and there may be some old folks in the left lane doing 55 or 60. The posted speed limit on that stretch of road is 55 miles per hour. Are you saying that everyone except Gramps in his Crown Vic doing 55 is not in control of their car?

How about if the state changed the speed limit on that road to 65 miles per hour instead of 55 miles per hour, but everyone was driving exactly the same way. Would now 40% of the people suddenly be in control of their cars as opposed to just Gramps because they aren't technically speeding anymore? How about if that identical stretch of roadway where in the UK, where the speed limit would be 70 miles per hour. Is it suddenly the case that the average driver is now in control of the car because they aren't speeding, even though they are driving exactly the same way?

And by the way, how do you know the driver isn't trained in high speed driving? I'll admit, I haven't read all the documents surrounding this case, but its possible that he could be. You don't need to be a police officer or an EMT; psychohist has taken special driving courses, its not that uncommon. Would you change your opinion of his driving if you knew he had special training?

In other words, I think you are wrong. There is a difference between speeding (exceeding the legally posted limit) and not being in full control of your vehicle. In fact, I would argue that in this country the posted speed limits are often well below the speed that the average driver can drive in a reasonably safe and controlled manner, but that's getting a bit off track.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 05:57 pm (UTC), dcltdw replied:
Re: speeding verses control
Umm, says who? What is so magical about the posted speed limit that you are not in control of your vehicle the moment you are over it?

I believe we're not discussing the same thing here. I'm not trying to debate whether or not someone is in full control or not going at 64.9 or 66.1 mph. Rather, I'm focusing on the legalities involved here.

And by the way, how do you know the driver isn't trained in high speed driving?

Good point: it's not just the operator, but the vehicle as well. Clearly, the vehicle fails to qualify as legal (is "lawful" the term I want here?) to operate in excess of the speed limit due to lack of visual and aural markers.

In other words, I think you are wrong.

Always good to be clear.

There is a difference between speeding (exceeding the legally posted limit) and not being in full control of your vehicle.

Certainly, but as I stated in my post, I'm trying to focus on the Court perspective.

In fact, I would argue that in this country the posted speed limits are often well below the speed that the average driver can drive in a reasonably safe and controlled manner, but that's getting a bit off track.

I also don't see how that's germane.




One thing I'm not clear on is that I think I am making an interpretation that "speed limits exist to promote safety", and I'm not sure how I got there. Is this one of those "totally obvious" (I'm amused that this entire discussion seems to rest on what is or isn't totally obvious) things, or is this one of those points that various schools of legal thought have been furiously debating, or is this a common pitfall of ignorant armchair lawyers? :)
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 06:19 pm (UTC), greyautumnrain replied:
Then what the heck are you saying?
You made a charge that one statement was internally inconsistent. You asserted that it was inconsistent because it was not possible, in your view, to be speeding and in control of your vehicle. I'm saying that you're wrong about that. The phrase that you quoted was "respondent, though speeding, retained full control". So, if that's an inconsistent statement because the respondent, in your view, can't be in full control if he is speeding, then you are asserting that something special happens between 64.9 and 66.1 mph, assuming a posted limit of 65mph.

I understand that you believe that speed limits exist to promote safety. Even if you accept this as the entire truth (which I do not), that doesn't actually prove your assertion that you can't be speeding and be in full control of your vehicle.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 06:32 pm (UTC), dcltdw replied:
Re: Then what the heck are you saying?
then you are asserting that something special happens between 64.9 and 66.1 mph, assuming a posted limit of 65mph.

Correct: at the point you exceed the limit, from a legal standpoint, you are no longer in full control of your vehicle.

Hmm, a little red flag went up that says, "I am repeating the same words, which clearly didn't work the first time, so it seems silly to expect it to work the second time." If it still seems nonsensical, I can mull over different phrasings.

I understand that you believe that speed limits exist to promote safety.

I don't think that's a correct assertion. I think that from a legal standpoint, speed limits (and other traffic laws) exist to promote safety. In reality, weeellll, this is where we could start playing "Who's more cynical?" with each other, but that's outside the original scope. :)
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 07:13 pm (UTC), greyautumnrain replied:
Re: Then what the heck are you saying?
Correct: at the point you exceed the limit, from a legal standpoint, you are no longer in full control of your vehicle.

OK, so you're saying that legally you're not in control of you vehicle if you are speeding. Can you tell me which law says that? The reason I ask is that the statement that you originally said was internally inconsistent was made by Justice Stevens, and I'm afraid I have to go out on a limb here and suggest that a sitting Supreme Court Justice probably knows the law of the land better than you do.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 07:36 pm (UTC), dcltdw replied:
Re: Then what the heck are you saying?
Can you tell me which law says that?

I am extrapolating from my understanding of how traffic regulations may be superseded by responding ambulance units.

The reason I ask is that the statement that you originally said was internally inconsistent was made by Justice Stevens, and I'm afraid I have to go out on a limb here and suggest that a sitting Supreme Court Justice probably knows the law of the land better than you do.

I'm not understanding your point. I thought the entire point of this thread is that psychohist disagrees with 8 of 9 Justices, and was inviting commentary on such.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 07:38 pm (UTC), dcltdw replied:
Re: Then what the heck are you saying?
(Hmm, bolding psychohist looks like I'm trying to emphasize that, but I'm not -- it's just easier to type foo than foo. And it looks awkwards to me to not somehow markup foo.)
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 08:13 pm (UTC), greyautumnrain replied:
you keep changing your arguement
I'm not understanding your point. I thought the entire point of this thread is that psychohist disagrees with 8 of 9 Justices, and was inviting commentary on such.

No where in the majority opinion does it either state or imply that exceeding the speed limit equates to not being in control of your car.

I am just arguing with the very specific claim that you made, stating that what Justice Stevens said was internally inconsistent. You originally stated that as if it was your opinion, then you said it was the case from a legal point of view, and now you seem to be saying that that's what you think the other justices think. Which one is it?
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 08:27 pm (UTC), dcltdw replied:
Re: you keep changing your arguement
I am just arguing with the very specific claim that you made, stating that what Justice Stevens said was internally inconsistent. You originally stated that as if it was your opinion, then you said it was the case from a legal point of view, and now you seem to be saying that that's what you think the other justices think. Which one is it?

All of the above.

It's my opinion that from a legal point of view, the other justices think that Justice Stevens argument is incorrect. Furthermore, I am speculating that the other Justices disagree with Justice Stevens because they find Justice Stevens' argument to be internally inconsistent.

Hopefully this clarifies what I've been trying to say.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 08:54 pm (UTC), greyautumnrain replied:
Re: you keep changing your arguement
Well then, I think you are mistaken on all of the above. Having read the majority opinion, it sounds like the speeding alone was not the issue the other justices had, and while the 8 majority justices may have disagreed with Justice Steven's statement, I don't think they would have considered it internally inconsistent, even if they do seem to think that he's a loon, as treptoplax points out.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 08:19 pm (UTC), kirisutogomen replied:
Re: Then what the heck are you saying?
I'm pretty clear that unsafe != out-of-control. "Speeding" is no more than breaking the law about how fast you're allowed to drive. Breaking the speed limit isn't automatically reckless endangerment, and it certainly isn't "you are no longer controlling the vehicle."

I don't know if there's a legal definition of "full control" as opposed to "any control at all." Your EMT knowledge probably can enlighten me on that one.

More importantly, I think we need to remember that this decision isn't about determining whether the guy was driving crazy. It is about determining whether this guy was driving so over-the-top crazy that there's no reasonable grounds for debate.

I think bringing up important points like "there should be different standards for what's crazy, depending on the training of the driver" is an indication that there is room for debate, because I'm pretty smart and I hadn't thought about that. You've demonstrated that there's room for discussion, and I think that means that 8 out of 9 Supremes are wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, I think smacking that guy was well-justified, but I also think he deserves a trial to confirm that.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 08:37 pm (UTC), dcltdw replied:
Re: Then what the heck are you saying?
Oh interesting! I had totally lost sight of the "$200 speeding ticket != vehicular manslaughter" or somesuch.

I don't know if there's a legal definition of "full control" as opposed to "any control at all." Your EMT knowledge probably can enlighten me on that one.

Guaaaah, I'd run away from trying to answer the first point. Mostly, our training was, if it can be established that you were not in control, you can and will get hosed.

The salient points were:
* Lights/sirens/sick baby in the back does not give you right of way. Other vehicles should yield the right of way, but until they do, they have it. Of course, the state trooper behind you can ream them afterwards, but it's still the case that you don't have right of way, and thus will be at fault if something happens.
* The privilege to ignore traffic regulations is always trumped by "as conditions permit". This is sometimes a no-brainer: do not go 80 mph down Storrow Drive at night in a howling blizzard. But others weren't a no-brainer to me: don't go 45 mph through a school zone around an elementary school at 3pm, because little kids will poke their heads out to see what's going on, and well, you're a truck, and trucks have really crappy braking distances and can't swerve worth a damn.

I think that means that 8 out of 9 Supremes are wrong.

Now I'm confused again. I thought it was Justice Stevens who was saying, "What? This guy was nuts. No discussion." whereas the other 8 were saying, "This needs to be discussed."
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 08:56 pm (UTC), greyautumnrain replied:
Re: Then what the heck are you saying?
Now I'm confused again. I thought it was Justice Stevens who was saying, "What? This guy was nuts. No discussion." whereas the other 8 were saying, "This needs to be discussed."

You are confused, because you have that exactly backwards.
On May 24th, 2007 09:00 pm (UTC), treptoplax replied:
Re: Then what the heck are you saying?
No, I think it was the other way: Stevens said, "Well, he was speeding but more-or-less in control", and the other 8 said "No reasonable jury would deny that his driving posed a serious, immediate danger to bystanders (bydrivers?)."
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 08:39 pm (UTC), psychohist replied:
Re: Then what the heck are you saying?
Correct: at the point you exceed the limit, from a legal standpoint, you are no longer in full control of your vehicle.

I think I'm going to have to echo what Elizabeth said, and say that the Supreme Court probably knows more about things "from a legal standpoint" than you do. Both Scalia's majority opinion and Stevens' dissent use the everyday lay meanings for terms like "control of the vehicle". In fact, a key part of Scalia's jurisprudence involve reading words to mean what the words mean, rather than making up alternate "legal standpoint" meanings.

As for why I posted this, other than to provide some entertainment, I'm interested in observing correlations between:

(1) People who know how to pass on two lane roads

(2) People who think the suspect in the video is in control of his vehicle.

Maybe I should have explicitly asked commenters to watch the video first.

[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 09:05 pm (UTC), dcltdw replied:
Re: Then what the heck are you saying?
In fact, a key part of Scalia's jurisprudence involve reading words to mean what the words mean

Ahhh, interesting. Yes, now I understand why where my phrase "from a legal standpoint" would raise all sorts of red flags.

I'm interested in observing correlations between:

(1) People who know how to pass on two lane roads

(2) People who think the suspect in the video is in control of his vehicle.


Hmm. I'm pretty sure I know how to pass on two lane roads, although (ha!) I think I'm going to open up Pandora's Box later and call that statement into question.

I'm going to avoid the binary trap and not say Yes or No. High speed at night? I can't gauge the speed from that video. Was it 55mph? (Unlikely, but for sake of argument.) Okay, that seems pretty in control. 80 mph? Nnnnnnnnno?

The Pandora's Box is: I may think I have the requisite skill, but I don't automatically believe other people when they say that, given the (lack of) driving skill I see. And really, there have been enough times I've gotten home and realized, "wow, umm, okay, when I did back there, that was dumb, and I'm only getting home safe because I'm lucky".

Maybe I should have explicitly asked commenters to watch the video first.

I did. I didn't read the entire Court opinion.
[User Picture]
On May 26th, 2007 04:17 pm (UTC), kirisutogomen replied:
Re: Then what the heck are you saying?
I started watching it, but it was too boring to hold my attention for very long. I'm quite confident that Jerry Bruckheimer would fire anyone who tried to submit the footage I watched as an exciting car chase.
* * *
On May 24th, 2007 04:50 pm (UTC), treptoplax commented:
The whole premise of the defense - that if the suspect's driving wasn't an immediate danger, deadly force may not be used - has always struck me as dubious. Surely, if we have a hard-and-fast rule that police may not, by the mere fact of a suspect evading arrest, use dangerous means to stop him, the predictable result will be more accidents, not less, as criminals are thus encouraged to flee the police.


That being said, as to the matter of fact, how can it be obvious if you can't get 9 Justices to agree on it? Um, duh?
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 07:57 pm (UTC), kirisutogomen replied:
This is what amuses me about this ruling. What we have is a question of whether something is so blatantly obvious as to deserve summary judgment. Now, there's a line between blatantly obvious and almost-blatantly-obvious, such that things near the line are teetering on the boundary between summary judgment vs. needing to go through an actual jury trial. And just as with any other fine-grained legal distinction (the minimum doubt that is reasonable doubt, how improbable probable cause can be, etc.) there are going to be cases that ride the edge sufficiently closely that appeals will be heard by every level of appeals court. The issue at hand is riding the edge between incredibly obvious and flagrantly obvious.

And now apparently the answer is that all but one person agrees that there is no room for reasonable disagreement. The irony!
On May 24th, 2007 08:12 pm (UTC), treptoplax replied:
So we have in fact learned one interesting thing; that most of the Court apparently thinks Justice Stevens is a loon.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 08:27 pm (UTC), greyautumnrain replied:
Indeed. It must make for interesting days at the office.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 08:30 pm (UTC), psychohist replied:
Possibly.

I think it's more likely that it's at least partly a tactical decision by Breyer, Ginsberg, and possibly Souter. By finding that the suspect was endangering people, they prevent the question of qualified immunity from being reached.

The reason that may be important is that, I think, that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito were prepared to substantially expand qualified immunity, and that that might be why this case was taken in the first place. I'm pretty sure Breyer and Ginsberg don't want to see it expanded.

I think they're opening a can of worms, though. What this decision basically says is that judges can rule on documentary evidence at the summary judgement stage without consulting a jury. Since jury trials are expensive and time consuming, there will be a lot of pressure to do so. That will significantly degrade the right to a jury trial, which I don't think is the intent of the judges.

I expect to see that question back in the Supreme Court in about three years at the most.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 08:39 pm (UTC), dcltdw replied:
*raises hand*
What's qualified immunity?

(Yay law lessons through lj! Or something.)
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 08:56 pm (UTC), psychohist replied:
The underlying suit is a suit for damages by the respondent - the suspect in the chase - against the police officer for the police officer's having bumped the respondent off the road and turned the respondent into a quadriplegic. The basis for this suit is the alleged violation of the 4th amendment's prohibition on "unreasonably searches and seizures" by the police officer. Basically the respondent contends that bumping him off the road was an unreasonable seizure.

Since the police officer was acting in the line of duty, he has a certain degree of immunity from lawsuits for damages that he causes in the line of duty. However, that immunity is not complete, it's qualified - in this case, if it can be demonstrated that he realized or should have realized that his seizure was unreasonable, he loses that immunity.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 08:59 pm (UTC), dcltdw replied:
Excellent, thank you.
On May 24th, 2007 09:11 pm (UTC), treptoplax replied:
Ah! I'm pretty sure I disapprove of that, but it would explain things a bit.
[User Picture]
On May 25th, 2007 02:20 am (UTC), psychohist replied:
Actually to be fair, there was another limited immunity case that was resolved at the same time. In that case, the police searched a house that had been sold; the warrant specified two black suspects, and the police woke up the two white occupants and made them stand naked a couple of minutes before they figured out their mistake, apologized, and left. The occupants sued on the basis that the police should have realized their mistake as soon as they saw that the occupants were a different race than named on the warrant. The Supreme Court agreed with the police that their search was reasonable, if mistaken, noting that the fact that they found a couple of white people living there didn't necessarily mean that the people named on the warrant weren't there.

That case may have drawn the line on qualified immunity in a place most or all the justices felt comfortable with, making resolution of this case by the Supreme Court unnecessary. Of course, if that were true, the correct course would probably have been for the Supreme Court to have revoked certiorari as improvidently granted, rather than getting into details they should be leaving to lower courts.
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 08:18 pm (UTC), psychohist replied:
The whole premise of the defense - that if the suspect's driving wasn't an immediate danger, deadly force may not be used - has always struck me as dubious.

The defense was just asking that the court use the same legal reasoning as a previous opinion on use of deadly force. Scalia's majority opinion basically says that was a case specific example of reasoning, and implies he might allow deadly force in situations other than that previous opinion covered - in other words, he agrees that it's dubious.

But then he pretty much goes ahead and uses that reasoning anyway.

There are actually other questions that are not reached in the opinion which probably should be. For example, I think Breyer makes a good point about how it might be easier in some cases to resolve the qualified immunity question if the facts are disputed, even though that's not currently allowed by Supreme Court precedent. I'm left with the general impression that the court was overwhelmed by actually having a video to see, and then forgot to do their job on interpreting the law.
* * *
[User Picture]
On May 24th, 2007 11:06 pm (UTC), greyautumnrain commented:
Color me cynical
Warren said I should post this...

I watched the video again. The first time I watched it, it was over his shoulder, so I got a closer look this time. The car looks like a Cadilac or something... or to put it as I put it to Warren 'it looks like a black person's car'. That is to say, it looks like a make of car that is generally more popular among the black population. Now, I have no idea what the actual race of the respondent is, but its clearly dark out in the video, so maybe the police didn't either, but they clearly saw the type of car. Given that this chase took place in Georgia, I am suspicious that one factor at play here that may have contributed to the decision to use deadly force was that in addition to speeding the respondent may have been suspected of committing another common "crime"... DWB.
[User Picture]
On May 25th, 2007 02:25 am (UTC), psychohist replied:
Re: Color me cynical
This reminds me of a discussion of heavily smoked car windows I encountered on another forum. Evidently they're mostly used by black people, hoping that police will treat them less suspiciously if they can't see their race through the windows. Of course, then the police treat them suspiciously because they seem to be hiding who they are.
* * *

Previous Entry · Leave a comment · Share · Next Entry