Saturday, May 23, 2009

I think a re-prioritization is in order

Birmingham police chase that led to beating of suspect began after officer witnessed possible drug transaction

Chief gives few details, citing 3 investigations

Saturday, May 23, 2009
News staff writer

The January 2008 Birmingham police chase that ended with an unconscious suspect being beaten by five Birmingham police officers, and the firing of those officers this week, began after an officer witnessed a possible drug transaction, Birmingham police Chief A.C. Roper said Friday.

As the suspect, Anthony Shannon Warren, drove away, "the officer witnessed a traffic violation, so, of course, it is the officer's duty to pursue the suspect at this point," Roper said.

Roper's comments came in response to e-mailed questions from The News, asking for more details about the chase that ended with a wreck in Hoover in which Warren was thrown from his van and lay apparently unconscious while Birmingham officers beat him. Before the 22-minute chase ended, Warren's van struck a Hoover police officer.

Roper said he could not provide more detailed information about the incident, citing anticipated litigation and open investigations by his department and state and federal agencies.

"I'm sure other information will become available as we move forward," Roper said.

Yeah convenient that there was a 'traffic violation' so the officer could try and pull the suspect over. Sure, drugs are illegal, but is what someone might be about to put in their own body enough justification to initiate a high speed chase through a major metropolitan area where tens of thousands of lives are put in jeopardy? NO! I think the BHAM police and ALL other police departments need to re-prioritize what justifies a high speed chase. That any police department would jeopardize so many people to stop one person from ingesting any substance is beyond the pale.


Anonymous said...

don't these people know, that the war on "The Trash In Their Way" is over

In his first interview as Drug Czar, Gil Kerlikowske told the WSJ last week that the term “War on Drugs,” first used by Richard Nixon in 1969, had been retired. “Regardless of how you try to explain to people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or a ‘war on a product,’ people see a war as a war on them,” he said. “We’re not at war with people in this country.”

Loretta Nall said...

I almost got excited about what Kerlikowske said...but then I listened to the interview he did in Seattle a few days ago and changed my mind. Giving the drug war a different name is far, far from ending it. Here is the interview if you want to listen.

Anonymous said...

The comments on the news sites about this chase are scary. Most people think the cops are heroes for going after a "crackhead thug". If it was one of thier children with the drug problem they would see it another way I'm sure. Harm reduction is badly needed.

Vape_1:29 said...

- I believe the war on a product /
Religion Against Marijuana really needs to end.

- You may have already seen this video,
where congressman Steve Cohen, (District 9 (TN)),
asks FBI Director Robert Mueller,

"...Is there sometime we're gonna see we oughta prioritize...?"

FFWD to approx. 2min19sec for quoted question...