Search Results: between days

"The suicide bomber made his away across Bagram air base in Afghanistan in 2016, heading toward a Veterans Day 5-K race featuring hundreds of U. S. soldiers. As U. S. Army Spec. Winston T. Hencely moved to grab the man, the bomber detonated an explosive-laden vest that left Hencely with severe injuries and killed six.

Hencely was credited with saving lives, and the military later concluded that a contractor, Fluor Corp., which employed the suicide bomber, had failed to properly supervise the man before the attack.

Under federal law, Hencely cannot sue the military for his injuries. And when he sued Fluor for negligence, courts dismissed his case, saying federal law preempted it as well.

On Monday, the Supreme Court grappled with Hencely’s last-ditch appeal to revive his lawsuit. The case will determine what recourse soldiers hurt in combat zones might have if they allege that contractors — a fast-growing part of military operations — are responsible for their injuries.

The case revolves around the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which in some instances waives the sovereign immunity the government typically enjoys against lawsuits. The law sets up some clear barriers to suits, including those related to “combatant activities” during “time of war.”

In 1988 SCOTUS held that the tort law barred suits against military contractors when the claims involve a “uniquely federal interest.”.

Mark Mosier, an attorney for Fluor, told the justices the readiness of the U. S. military to fight a war could be undermined by suits like Hencely’s because trust between the military and contractors is paramount.

“The purpose of tort law is to discourage risk-taking, but waging war often requires contractors to take risks, putting their lives and the lives of others in danger,” Mosier said. “Petitioner’s claims also weaken the military’s control over combat operations. Contractors are part of the total force, and the military cannot successfully wage war without them.”

If the vehicle plates are known (99% of cop cars have dashcam) is there really any reason to chase them immediately?

Obviously if their crime is a violent felony that is a factor but almost ALL chases are the result of a initial traffic stop or at worst robbery (yes that could be violent felony but the vast majority of robberies only threaten violence, not inflict actual violence).

From the FBI:

Successful restrictions: Cities like Milwaukee, Los Angeles, and Orlando have restricted chase policies and have not seen corresponding spikes in crime.

Alternative technology: Some police departments are using GPS tracking units that can be fired onto a fleeing vehicle, allowing officers to disengage from a high-speed chase while still tracking the suspect. In one set of case studies, 80% of speeders were still apprehended using this method.

Widespread fatalities: More than one person is killed every day on average in police pursuit crashes.

Risk to bystanders: Most of those killed in police chases are not the fleeing drivers. 25-40% involved uninvolved third parties.

Disproportionate harm: Black people are 4x more likely to be killed in police pursuits than white people.

Traffic violations: The majority of pursuits begin because of a minor traffic or property-related offense.

Fatal chases: From 2017 to 2022, 82% of fatal police chases started over a traffic stop. Only about 15% were for violent felonies.

Low felony arrest rate: Only 1 in 50 result in a felony arrest.

Significant failure and crash rates

High escape rate: Studies suggest that between 30% and 50% of police pursuits end with no capture.

High crash rate: An FBI analysis 35%-40% of all pursuits ended in a crash.

Ineffective deterrence: A study found that 75% of fleeing drivers said they would slow down after police disengaged.

High financial costs

Taxpayer expense: The costs of high-speed chases, including litigation and liability payouts for crashes.