1) Lead cops on 100mph chase 2) Ram a cop car 3) Get rammed off road by cop car 4) Sue cops for excessive use of force

Makes sense to me.

On 30 April of this year, CNN reported on a decision by the Supreme Court concerning the (alleged - always alleged) actions of a Georgia teenager and the local police. It appears that the teen, who was driving with a suspended license, didn't want his car to be impounded. A cop had tried to pull him over for speeding. Instead of complying, the teen led police on what dashcam footage shows to be a > 100 mph case, crossing the double-yellow line to pass "about three dozen cars" (the article isn't clear if this was in one pass or several). Apparently, he also rammed a police car after it tried to block him into a parking lot that he had entered in his escape attempt. At this point the cop radios his supervisor, asking for permission to use "potentially deadly force" to stop the fleeing suspect. The supervisor assents, giving permission to use the PIT maneuver, but later (whether during the chase or after is not clear in the article) the officer says that the suspect is going too fast, and he (the officer) is worried about involving other drivers. So he rams the suspect's car, sending it off the road, injuring the suspect and leaving him a quadriplegic (there is a link for a video clip from the dash cam of one of the involved police cars, but the necessary plugin isn't free.). Later, the suspect sues the police for using excessive force.

I have to say, the teen has chutzpah.

Lower courts held that the teen had a right to sue (after all, this is AMERICA - I can sue you because I don't like the color of your shirt); the Supreme Court overruled this, 8-1, essentially dismissing he case. The argument for the dismissal was that the teen presented a real, severe, and immediate danger to the public; forcing him off of the road was in the public interest. The lone dissent stated the reverse: "I can only conclude that my colleagues were unduly frightened by two or three images on the [dashcam] tape" that played an important role in the police officer's defense. I guess that the roads and the drivers around Washington, D.C. are better than those around here: how is driving at > 100 mph on a two lane road, or crossing the double yellow line to pass about a dozen cars not dangerous, in a real and immediate sense, to anyone else who happens to be on that road with you?

Now, I'll admit that CNN doesn't comment on what the traffic was like at the time that the officer decided to ram the suspect's vehicle instead of using the PIT maneuver. It is possible that there were no other cars in sight, and that the officer could see enough of the road ahead to determine that there was no traffic that might get ensnared in a PIT maneuver, though I'll also repeat that the officer considered the PIT to be unacceptable at the speed of the suspect's vehicle. But at 100 mph you're traveling 100/60 = 1 and 2/3 miles every minute. If a vehicle is approaching you from the front at only 20 mph, then the you're getting 2 miles closer to that vehicle every minute. No doubt the roads in Georgia are different than the frost-battered ones of New York, but I rarely get the privilege of seeing even one mile ahead of me on the interstate, far less two miles ahead of me on a two lane road, and not considering the potential of vehicles entering from side streets or driveways. That's a lot of road for John Q. Public's vehicle to be hiding in. Isn't protecting the public part of what a police officer is supposed to be doing?

Finally, I am aware of the argument that the police could have broken off the chase. That's a discussion for another day. And I'm aware that being a paraplegic for life is tough punishment for refusing to pull over for a speeding ticket. Life isn't fair. But if we believe that our legal system should be fair, is it any more fair to force punishment on a police officer for actions that protected the public?

And don't even get me started about bad driving.