Scott v. Harris sample judgement video #2

This is an edited video based on the video in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision record in Scott v. Harris. It shows a police chase of a fleeing driver. It is edited to highlight an evaluation that indicates more danger to the public. For more discussion of the video and its editing, see http://purplemotes.net/2008/02/10/editing/

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• law
• Supreme
• Court
• decision
• Scott
• Harris
• police
• chase

[rhosey001]

I think the point made about the summary judgement Is that once again a branch thinks we are too stu[id to make a decision and the court must take itout of our hands. This is unconstitional.

[Dranu86]

Also it was Summary Judgement. I.e. they're saying no reasonable jury could conclude Harris's actions were not a substantial risk of serious harm to others (such to justify this deadly force)

One point: Scott was the officer who took out Harris. Harris was a 19y/o rendered a quadriplegic by the wreck (sued for excessive force). I think it came out as it should have. He clearly ran 2 red lights with traffic about, ran over a double yellow line, and drove in a turning lane for a while.

[564955charlie]

i live in this county and work for an agency that watched this video as part of seminar on use of force.

i totally agree with you on this, at face value i thought it was ridiculous that Timothy Scott got sued for this. i read all of the justices Judgements and all of them except for one agreed with his actions.

[rhosey001]

Have you read the decision in this case?

It is available at the U.S. Supreme court web site if you haven't.

Reading it and then viewing the entire chase,(also on utube) just may answer that question for you without us arguing.

[squirreldetective]

Oh, no. It's not a new motion at all (and it is a very just motion to have available), but the standard for granting it (as interpreted by SC) has changed over the years (especially since the 1980's). And while some of these have been good changes, decisions like Scott v. Harris greatly confuse this standard. When you watch the video, is is SO clear that people's lives were in danger that NO jury could reasonably decide otherwise? Does this video make it such that there is no genuine dispute?

[rhosey001]

To the best of my knowledge "summary judgement" is not a new procedure. It is a good point though.

It seems as though the checks and balances planned by our forefathers, sometimes are stepped all over and disregarded.

[squirreldetective]

*Oh! Not this video specifically, of course. This one has been edited from the original. ( =

[squirreldetective]

It's more of a landmark than this. The Court decided the case in a summary judgment, which means that they thought that "no reasonable jury" could decide otherwise. The decision to grant the summary judgment (not to send to the jury) was based primarily on THIS video. Some think that, by doing this, the Court lowered the standard for summary judgment and made it easier to bypass the jury (especially in this digital age). It sets precedent not only for police power, but for fed civil procedure.

[rhosey001]

It's a big issue because Mr. Scott sued Mr. Harris, and the case went to the Supreme Court of The United States. Mr. Scott not only lost but the case set a precident for future police chases. The disision states that because of the risk to other people, it is justified to use deadly force to end the chase.

[montanatexasfloridaz]

ok can somebody please explain what going on here? why is is such a big issue? thanks x