|
The Andris Simmons Feb 8th article about high speed police car chases was balanced and informative. The initial debate surrounding police chase violence tends to revolve around whether or not the associated violence was criminal or accidental. The courts and public sentiment tend toward accidental violence unless the blame can be laid on the party being chased. Despite this double standard; it is doubtful the runner or the police officer premeditated intentional violence against innocent victims.
Without intent, all resulting crashes and the violent death and injuries associated with them, belong in civil court. The perpetrator should be held responsible, but only to the parties that lost their loved ones, their property, and for their pain and suffering. Civil court is the place victims should find justice.
Some people would say that the runner should at least be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit. Perhaps so; but why is it wrong for the runner to exceed the speed limit, but not the chasing police officer? The cop is exceeding the same speed limit. This double standard gets to my main point.
Just law must always be defensive. Evil never prevents evil. Deadly force or the threat of deadly force can only be just when it is used in the defense of life or property. An individual cannot shoot someone --believed-- to be evil, and then claim innocence. Unless the shooter is judged to be acting defensively, they will normally be convicted of murder. This is the same moral dilemma Mr. Bush finds his presidency embroiled in.
Police officers should not break the law to prevent others from breaking it. The law should be clear and we should all be equal before it. If the police can break the law, we should be able to claim we were chasing evil doers the next time we get pulled over for speeding.
Police should use their radios, auto tag registration, and every other peaceful method available to create justice. They should never use evil to protect us from it.
|
