So, steal a car, have the police chase you and then sue them for the resulting crash?

[Byniri]

He just sued. There was no verdict, and he didn't get any money yet. The judge will laugh in his face and dismiss the lawsuit just like that. People can sue for any reason.

[Alraml]

Well since the driver was a 16 year old you can't exactly expect him act like an average adult. A 16 year old is still just a kid. Its possible they didn't want face their parents if they got caught and therefore tried to make a break for it. Sure they did wrong but they are still kids.

Yet it's the legal age to hold a licence in that country. If 16 year old's can't be expected to behave adult enough to drive a car then the legal age should be raised

[Oevaag]

Ok, I've maybe picked this up from one of the many fictional US cop/legal TV shows but, I thought there was a "law" that said you could not profit from a crime ? eg A murderer can't sell the movie rights to his story and actually keep the money he might make for that. Surely the same "rule" would apply here ?

[Todgruppe]

Well since the driver was a 16 year old you can't exactly expect him act like an average adult. A 16 year old is still just a kid. Its possible they didn't want face their parents if they got caught and therefore tried to make a break for it. Sure they did wrong but they are still kids.

Letting so much go, in the guise of "oh they are just kids"!

[NoRest4Wicked]

I bet they weren't wearing their seat belts.

[Magpai]

My opinion is that when you are stealing someone else's property or willfully invade someone else's private property you forfeit all right to safety, particularly when you are putting people in danger (or making them believe you are via threats).

My personal feelings is that they deserved what they got and the world's better off without them, but I know that has no legal relevance, it's just an opinion.

Anyway if this gets paid out it only shows what's wrong with the jury system of modern times. It's great in principle to be judged by your peers but not when society has gotten so unbearably stupid. Especially when it comes to lawsuits, when people think that corporations and governments have unlimited money and that there are no consequences for paying out ludicrous sums to plaintiffs. All it is is an excuse to use the government as a middle man to give "the little guy" money from "the man".

The thought of someone using the law to get money as a result of something that happened BECAUSE they wouldn't comply with the law is classic in itself, come to think of it. That kid should be jailed for manslaughter for his part in their deaths.

[GammaIntro]

I have no words to describe our legal system.

[Maruka]

Lysah i hate to say it but you are so far out of touch with reality in this thread it is painful.


Warning: Please, keep posts respectful.

[Tinykong]

What would people's opinions be if the kid had instead been allowed to flee, and wound up crashing into another car killing someone else?

Blame the criminal, without their actions everyone would have gone home that night.

[Deleted]

The only survivor of a police chase that left three people dead in March is suing the Montgomery County Police Department.

is suing

NOTE THE "IS SUING". I hope you guys know what that means...

I could sue any one of you for some random shit if I had your contact details. Welcome to the legal system? Imagine how bad it would be if every lawsuit or criminal prosecution had to go through the MMO champion off topic forums for approval. Good god, I don't even want to think about it.. You would have a fascist statist legal system within weeks.

Unless he actually wins you have nothing to be whining about.

I have no words to describe our legal system.

Yes how dare people be allowed to launch lawsuits against others. We need to get rid of that shit.

...really?

[buck008]

Ok, I'll play. Keep in mind, this isn't necessarily what I believe, but so many people jump to conclusions.

The police are required to act responsibly as well. For example, let's say the kid was a purse snatcher. He snags one and takes off through a crowded mall, shoving people down as he goes to get away. The police gun him down to keep him from evading them out of their jurisdiction, and injuring bystanders. Let's say they shoot for the legs, so they are actively trying to injure and not kill. Should the police fire their weapons in such a case? I think we'd all say no unless there was absolutely no alternative. In this case, the police cruiser is a weapon. Maybe it's a good idea to be sure they acted responsibly.

I suppose my point is that we Americans love our righteous indignation. We love to look at a few facts, assume we know everything there is to know, and launch into a tirade/crusade/both before we really know what's going on. I know I've done it, and I generally try not to. One assumes that if there wasn't a legit case here, it would get thrown out. Most of the really egregious frivolous lawsuits do, despite what the paparazzi media over at CNN and Fox would like you to believe. The truly terrible verdicts are the exception rather than the rule, and a lot of those get thrown out on appeal.

[Shamgar]

Well deserved. The police pursue and RAM INTO a car, who then crashes and three people dies. What kind of behavior is that. In my country the police could never get away with the stupid stunts like this. It's like they use old bruce willis movies as training..
The point is not if the car is stolen or not. Car theft is not punishable by death by car crash, with police constables as jury, judge and executioner...

[Seegtease]

There's a few things I'm getting here

Were bystanders really in danger by the way they were driving? I'm not sure what kind of area they were driving in, but police have to use discretion.

Simply put, the police have to try to minimize risk for casualties by whatever means necessary. Did the police INTEND to kill the passengers? No, they didn't. That much is obvious. Did they know the risk of the passengers of the car dying was a real risk? Of course they did.

They decided that the risk for pedestrians getting injured from their reckless driving exceeded the risk of the passengers of the car dying (not to mention the value of the lives of the passengers is less than bystanders, since it's the criminals that were endangering the bystanders).

There is actually room for debate on both sides here. The question is this: did the police use decent judgment when assessing the risk of the passengers vs. bystanders? Or were the police absolutely reckless? The courts will decide. It's the same reason they can't shoot someone for running away, but they CAN shoot someone who is threatening the life of someone else.

So were they threatening other lives, or were they simply running with no harm to anyone but themselves? This is what matters.

[Xeones]

I hope the county counter sues the family for all the costs incurred for this frivilous law suit. These people were fleeing police, police have a responsibility to stop these people. The police completed their responsibility and ended the threat to innocent citizens. I'm completely disgusted that people that think the cops were wrong to stop these people for fleeing arest. Whats next "Oh don't stop that terrorist, you might hurt him!"

The officers did exactly what my tax dollars pay them to do.

---------- Post added 2012-04-29 at 04:53 PM ----------

Well deserved. The police pursue and RAM INTO a car, who then crashes and three people dies. What kind of behavior is that. In my country the police could never get away with the stupid stunts like this. It's like they use old bruce willis movies as training..
The point is not if the car is stolen or not. Car theft is not punishable by death by car crash, with police constables as jury, judge and executioner...

This doesn't even make sense. In my country you disable the vehicle and aprehend the criminals. Your post is just vile.

[NoRest4Wicked]

John67 hit the nail on the head. Just because they are filing a lawsuit doesn't automatically mean the plaintiff is going to win. I could sue my neighbor down the street because his cat likes to piss on my BMW's rag top, but how far do you think that would go?

[Jodah]

Well, they can't exactly stop someone from dying if the car wrecks now can they?
I don't believe they have super human powers where the car crashes and they just will it to happen that nobody die???

Especially if none of them gave the other care the bumps and such that is procedure to do in a chase and they still crashed into a tree.

and in all honestly, if you're driving around in a stolen vehicle and not pulling over when they police are following with their lights on then you are kinda retarded and don't deserve much at that point...
that is unless ya know, the car isn't stolen and you know beyond a reasonable doubt this officer plans to cause you bodily harm.


*edit* Kill two criminals, or risk killing the mother walking with her children that happen to be crossing the street when they criminals passed and hit killing all of them.
Easy choice for me, shove a missile up the cars rear end

and I'm going to say this also.
Only in America.
Its the only place I see this stupid crap happening.
(Mods I am a born and raised American myself, so I'm not hating but its truth we are the only country i hear about things from, show me evidence of this stupid stuff happening elsewhere and I'll gladly take it back, but as it stands we are a country of greedy retards.)

Maybe the reason you hear about it is because you're in the US where US news is more common. Just saying.

[ngc2440]

There's a few things I'm getting here

Were bystanders really in danger by the way they were driving? I'm not sure what kind of area they were driving in, but police have to use discretion.

Simply put, the police have to try to minimize risk for casualties by whatever means necessary. Did the police INTEND to kill the passengers? No, they didn't. That much is obvious. Did they know the risk of the passengers of the car dying was a real risk? Of course they did.

They decided that the risk for pedestrians getting injured from their reckless driving exceeded the risk of the passengers of the car dying (not to mention the value of the lives of the passengers is less than bystanders, since it's the criminals that were endangering the bystanders).

There is actually room for debate on both sides here. The question is this: did the police use decent judgment when assessing the risk of the passengers vs. bystanders? Or were the police absolutely reckless? The courts will decide. It's the same reason they can't shoot someone for running away, but they CAN shoot someone who is threatening the life of someone else.

So were they threatening other lives, or were they simply running with no harm to anyone but themselves? This is what matters.

You summed up my thoughts exactly. I should also note it saddens me a bit on how many rally to the guy trying to sue for $10 million dollars. The pit manuver is to disable a car that poses a high risk to other people. Yes there is a risk behind using it but would you rather risk killing people who are doing wrong or people who are completely irrelevant to the problem?

On a side note to the people equating this to a cop shooting someone in the legs who is running away from them is poor at best. It would be more akin to using a taser on them, which I also support. Yes, there is a risk of dying there also. But it provides a relatively safe way to stop a criminal from causing more harm than just letting them keep running.

[Grizzly Willy]

They could start with not stealing a car. Or in this event, stop when asked instead of racing away.

So stealing a car justifies two accounts of manslaughter? I agree that the people shouldn't have stolen the car in the first place, let alone sped away when the police got involved, but I still have to wonder if something didn't go wrong here.

[StayTuned]

No really, the chasing thing in the US is way to brutal in my opinion. They hit the car without even thinking that it could crash into something like a tree or, even worse, another car. So they basicly endager the whole traffic by themselfs instead of protecting others.

[Xeones]

So stealing a car justifies two accounts of manslaughter?

Where was the manslaughter? They were the ones who ran into a tree.

---------- Post added 2012-04-29 at 05:18 PM ----------

No really, the chasing thing in the US is way to brutal in my opinion. They hit the car without even thinking that it could crash into something like a tree or, even worse, another car. So they basicly endager the whole traffic by themselfs instead of protecting others.

So you have taken the extensive driving classes police have to be certified in each year to make this statement?