Cowboy Cops and Their Frequently Completely Innocent Human Roadkill

[NanoByte]

Why does North American society tolerate, to such an extreme extent, the practice by police of high-speed chase, which seems to gnaw at the very concept of civilization? Why is California the leader in this primitive ritual that uses century-old technology as if it were turn-of-the-millenium high tech? In SoCal, of course, this bloody sport is a favored choice of entertainment, regularly aired live from helicopter TV cameras.

Is this sport an improvement over bull-, dog- or cockfighting? If so, shouldn't it be played between, say, the CA CHP and the TX Rangers, rather than by all sorts of police forces against the North American public, indiscriminately amongst criminal and law-abiding elements thereof? The police and their jurisdictions smugly rely on non-liability laws, such as CA.US's Vehicle Code 17004 and its subsection 17004.7, and simply charge the fugitive with vehicular manslaughter. Certainly, it is usually clear that the pursuing police, from the beginning of a chase, should be expected to have good control of their driving, while usually it is aware to them that the driver they are chasing is quite unlikely to employ such control. Furthermore, the police usually have no information that their fugitive is any kind of real menace -- except while at the wheel of his car at the time police units are roaring up behind him. Often this fugitive is a kid who simply doesn't want another traffic ticket, or just likes to try to outrun the cops. . .but to the cops, that always seems to fill the bill for a juicy chase.

It's easy to see why macho types in police forces like it the way it is; it's difficult, though, to see why the general public wants to simply play their decreasing odds that they won't be nearby when the next shots of testosterone start flowing.

I ask this after a particularly blatant killing of an Oakland, CA.US resident by the OPD (http://www.tsoft.net/~raych/OkldHiSpdChase.htm), via a petty drug dealer, on Nov. 3 of this year.

Ray

[The LION]

Well NanoByte sometimes it is more than just a kid who is afraid of getting a ticket.
About a year or so ago here in Houston,HPD tried to stop a car and the guy tried to outrun them.
The police did stop him and when they did it was discovered that he had kidnapped,beat and raped a woman and was on his way to kill her and dispose of the body.
I bet she was glad the police gave chase.

Peace
t lion

------------------
_________________________
" I Wonder What Happens When I push THIS Button? "
_________________________

[NanoByte]

Yeah, for every woman in that situation, five or ten are wiped out by cops chasing some guy just trying to see if his rod can out-maneuver a police car. See my references -- particularly the Dateline transcript -- and check other relevant material on the Web, some in newspapers' archives. I'll post more URLs for these later.

Why do you and others buy such statistically-in-the-minority anecdotes from cops? I assume you only got what you stated here from the words of a cop that were printed in a newspaper. You probably don't even really know how much of what he said was actually true -- an it only refers to an unfulfilled act somehow supposed to occur in the future. But in any case, the stats are by far hopelessly against the probably-only-hypothesized scenario you mention.

Ray

[Doug Bowe]

If a policeman signals you to pull over, you're supposed to pull over.
Just for the sake of argument, what if you did peel out at 125 mph and run away the PD?
And you did that because you knew that they would shrug their shoulders and say "Well, we lost another one."
Do you really want every citizen to believe they have a legal right to floor it?
Do you think you've seen carnage so far?
This needs some work.

[Cabbage]

In my (small) hometown a couple of months ago, a cop wrecked his car. He wasn't chasing anyone, he was on call to some location--he claimed a car pulled out in front of him, I believe, causing him to swerve and lose control. I'm skeptical of this, myself--he was doing over 100 mph in an area with "maximum safe speed" 25 mph curves. Fortunately, nobody was seriously hurt. Slightly, off topic, but a month before that, another cop hit a pedestrian, apparently the cop had been eating behind the wheel, choked, and lost control. No serious injuries this time either, luckily. An accident, apparently, and nothing was done--but I wonder if the same would be true if the driver had not been a cop.

Where I'm living now, I heard about a cop in a chase that collided with a truck (not involved in the chase). I'm not sure, but I think the cop died in that accident, and while it sucks that it happened, of course, it did piss me off that the news mentioned nothing of the condition of the truck driver, as if that somehow wasn't important.

Anway, back to the OP--I certainly don't think chases can simply be eliminated, but they are, of course, sometimes more dangerous than the purpose justifies. One thing I recall hearing something about, maybe someone can educate me some more. I heard there's some device now that can disable a car's engine from some given distance. I don't know if it can be aimed, or if it just acts on everything in a given radius. Hell, I'm not even sure it's not a figment of my imagination. I don't think this is a perfect solution, though, I can certainly think of other issues a device like this could bring up.

[The LION]

No I was listening to the police two way radios on my ham radio that night.
Here in the Houston area they had to change the chase policy after an inocent famly was killed by fleeing suspect.
If you knew that the police would not give chase would you stop if a police officer flags you over?
Are most deaths in these situation caused by the police or the suspect, who would be speeding anyway?
As I understand it large police departments train there officers for high speed driving, can you say the same for the suspects?

Peace
t lion


------------------
_________________________
" I Wonder What Happens When I push THIS Button? "
_________________________

[funneefarmer]

Disable a car's tire with a rip strip. I remember seeing in Autoweek a device from South Africa called the auto-harpoon that would send a harpoon from the front of a police car into the rear of another car. I believe it also had a cable to attach the two so the cop could slam on the brakes and bring the other car to a halt. The major problem was on smaller cars you could easily harpoon the driver. I do think there is a device out there that will blow the computer on newer cars but I think the device has to be close to the car at the time making it just as (un)reliable as a rip strip.

I'm thinking maybe rocket launchers, machine guns and lasers...

Now that I think of it why aren't cops using lasers to crack the windshields making it harder to see ?

[NanoByte]

Doug Bowe:

So your theory is that, if the cops are not allowed to chase at high speed, many more persons will flee them? I guess that's a theory rather similar to the one that, if we don't have the death penalty, with have more murders. There's no indication anywhere that either of these theories correlate to fact. The transcript of a Dateline program I link to on the page of mine I link to from my OP says (at the time in 1996, at least), that Baltimore did not allow such chases at all. Baltimore, of course, is a high-crime city. Does anyone lurking here have any authentic data on fleeing from police in that city, both before and after 1996?

This is almost 2000. With electronics you can find out just about where almost anything is almost anywhere almost at any time, without creating a bloodbath in order to do it. The money saved from replacing smashed up police cars could easily pay for adaptation of feasible electronic devices to track fugitives and their vehicles for later apprehension under circumstances far less destructive of what should be the populace that is to be protected by the law. But, of course, the use of such devices is far less fun for cowboy cops, most of whom, in younger years, were those who either fled or otherwise drove in extremely reckless manners. And also, of course, none of this will happen as long as we have liability laws protecting indifferent individual police and their governmental jurisdictions. Actually, nothing will improve until the populace quits this attitude that the solution to crime is simply to hire more cops. We ran out of decent cops at least two decades ago. Decent and competent ones don't just pour out of a spigot on the call of a politician for "50,000 more police", in order to get elected.

Cabbage:

Yes, I saw something, I think in the newspaper or on TV, about some wireless means of disabling a land vehicle moving at high speed, but it required installation of some special equipment in the speeding vehicle, usually at the time of its manufacture. I don't think that sort of scheme is feasible at all.

Another one is mentioned in only a few words, at the end of the Dateline transcript is link to. It says only:

"Road Patriot, a rocket-powered sled that slides under a car and electronically disables the engine."

That doesn't sound very feasible or economical either, though it may eventually well be.

Ray

[Ponster]

Here in Ireland from 2002 onwards (looking for a link to confirm), ALL new cars must be fitted with security devices that will allow the car to be disabled by satallite. The system has been tested and *seems* to work. The car is slowed down by remote control as soon as the cops are within sight of the car.

I guess it might cause lots "Big Brother" type reactions in the US, but here we have the highest number of car thefts and road deaths in Europe so I guess people wouldn't mind a change.

[Cabbage]

Thanks, NanoByte.

What bothers me about a device such is that is, number one, abuse by the cops. Number two, simply safe driving--if you suddenly lose your engine, it's quite possible that in itself could cause an accident.

On a similar note, I think some years ago there was an effort to put governors on all cars that would not allow them to go above 65 mph (or whatever the prevalent speed limit was at the time). In fact, I think these devices are on many rentable moving vans--once you hit 65, the gas pedal stiffens, and even if you do depress it more, there's no real acceleration. Anyway, I personally think that's a safety issue--there are certainly occasions when merging, avoiding other mergers, or what have you, when the safest thing you can possibly do is to go above the speed limit--and this device does not allow it. A very short-sighted idea, IMO.

Anyway, I'm rambling again. Another story I think worth bringing up is this. Several years ago I heard of a cop on call to some emergency, speeding to the location. A woman (who had the green light) pulled out in front of him, was hit and killed. However, the cop did NOT have his flashing lights or his siren on. I definitely think the cop has some accountability for this--I do know the family sued, but I never heard the outcome.

[Little Nemo]

NanoByte, clearly you have issues here other than simply objecting to the dangers of high speed chases. There is anecdotal evidence to support or oppose any position. But the overall judgement of law enforcement agencies (which set pursuit procedures), government bodies (which oversee the police), and society in general (which elects the government) is that high speed chases are justified in many circumstances. It's reasonable to assume that someone willing to take off at 150 mph to avoid a minor ticket might be concealing a more serious crime. The police are trained to pursue while minimizing the danger to bystanders as much as possible. And finally, you should remember that the police never initiate these chases, the other driver is always the one who goes to high speed first.

[Ursa Major]

The only So Cal police vehicles that engage in high speed chases anymore are helicopters. As soon as the suspect car starts driving significantly faster than traffic, the black and whites back off and let the chopper direct cops further up the road toward any possible bail out.

Pursuit proceedures have evolved radically over the last ten years and a lot more chases end without injury than was once the case. Macho cops have nothing to do with the actual chases which are usually directed by an office bound supervisor. The police behind the wheel don't exercise any independent action until the actual arrest phase.

The only disturbing trend is the blood thirsty local TV stations that turn what really isn't legit news into a public blood sport.

[MrKnowItAll]

I'm sorry, NB, but I've got to agree with David on this one. The only reason most people don't take off at high speeds is the general knowledge that cop cars can outrun and outmaneuver nearly everything else on the road. Think what a problem drunk driving would become if the police weren't allowed to chase down offending drivers.

The fact is that a ton of steel and aluminum moving in excess of 50 MPH is inherently dangerous. People that do so in a dangerous manner need to be taken down. It sounds cold, but the handful of people that get killed or injured as a result of police chases is preferrable to the many more that would be hurt if the police were not able to stop them.

Furthermore, the police usually have no information that their fugitive is any kind of real menace -- except while at the wheel of his car at the time police units are roaring up behind him. Often this fugitive is a kid who simply doesn't want another traffic ticket, or just likes to try to outrun the cops. . .but to the cops, that always seems to fill the bill for a juicy chase.

Isn't that enough of a menace to justify stopping him? A kid with enough traffic tickets to be that concerned with getting another one is a danger to other drivers. Get him off the road.

I'm sure that machismo does feature into some (maybe many) policemen's decisions to chase down drivers. Let's face it, that's the kind of people the job attracts. What's more, without that mentality the law enforcement community would be almost useless. They have a hard and highly dangerous job, and it requires a certain "gung-ho" courage to be willing to put their lives in jeopardy in order to protect the rest of us. It's a shame that many people want to restrict the police to the point that they can't do anything.

[Jophiel]

Hell, if I knew the only thing I had to do to evade arrest is go faster than XXX miles per hour, I think I'd take up a life of crime.

I think most people would be upset to hear from now on, police were no longer going to persue suspects once they got above 75mph (or whatever), and would instead let the suspects flee.

------------------
"I guess one person can make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn't."

[Atrael]

While I don't know about harpoons, or robots under the car, I can't beleive that they couldn't figure out a way to mark the car with dye or hit it with somwthing that sticks to it so it's easily recognizable....maybe even a tracker or something....<shrug>..I just don't think it's ever wise to have a high speed chase....I don't care how much "training" they get, unless you drive a care at 100 mph every day, you can't be 100% in control...

[saruman]

In answer to Cabbage's statement about the girl who was killed by the speeding officer, it happened in Dallas, TX in 1993. The police officer was found not accountable, despite traveling over 80 mph (on a street, I might add, with a speed limit of 35) with no flashing lights, and running a red light. A civil suit was filed against the DPD and was dismissed. In this case, it seems cops are not held accountable for their actions, even when they break the law.

[Yarster]

I was pretty sure I had read about a device that some police departments have which interferes with the fuel injection systems on modern cars. It was my understanding, however, that it isn't used because:

1) It also disables other cars in the vicinity, including other police chase vehicles, and of course

2) The unit is fairly specialized and is rarely in the same place as where the high speed chase is going on.

Personally, I think the whole high-speed chase thing is just a game of one-upmanship. The criminal thinks he can get away if he goes fast, the cop thinks if he chases the guy, he'll give up. So the criminal speeds up, and more cops join the chase using the same "we'll scare him into stopping" logic.

Living in SoCal myself, I've watched enough chases on TV, and the helicopters do most of the chasing. Besides, if we didn't have high speed chases, how would the Fox network stay in business?

[MrKnowItAll]

The problem with marking the car is that it does nothing to mark the driver. The police need to maintain visual contact with the vehicle in order to be sure to get the actual person committing the crime. Getting the right car is not enough.

[hansel]

Since we're getting all personal here: as touchy-feely liberals go, I can cry with the best of them. But if I was cop trying to pull over someone over, and they took off, I'm certain that I would chase them down to the best of my ability. Someone who runs from a cop is almost certain to be hiding something ( issues of race aside ), and I just don't buy that most people who run are kids out joyriding who don't want the ticket.

Nano, do you have nationwide statistics that might help settle this matter? Such as the number of innocents killed versus the number of serious felons apprehended?

------------------
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.

[funneefarmer]

Marking it or putting a tracker on it might work in some circumstances. If the cops aren't going fast enough to keep up with you though what's to stop you from ditching that car and taking another at gunpoint etc.

[DougC]

The problem with marking the car is that it does nothing to mark the driver. The police need to maintain visual contact with the vehicle in order to be sure to get the actual person committing the crime. Getting the right car is not enough. - MRKNOWITALL
- - - Well, it's solved then. We'll put microchips into all the people. We'll have to put it into everybody (we can't be stigmatizing crminals, you know), and we'll have to put it somewhere that criminals can't remove it themselves: that means inside the skull. A slight risk of injury during the operation perhaps, but a significantly crime-reduced society afterwards. Shoot, who could argue with that? A noble cause if there ever was one. Who's first? - MC

[handy]

Im in California, USA.

Number one: they don't always chase
Number two: they may decide after a little chasing its too risky and not chase anymore.
Number three: It makes great entertainment.

Must say the anouncers sound pretty stupid, you know, 'oh, the guy they are chasing might have a gun! If he has a gun he might have a a-bomb and if he has that, he might set it off! Alright, evacuate LA!' lol

[Doug Bowe]

Okay, Nano. Your post was very timely. Tonight (Sunday) on Dateline they demonstrated a maneuver called "The Trap" that involves three unmarked police vehicles and is ment to stop high speed chases before they start. As demonstrated before the cameras, the maneuver works.
And as demonstrated by the numbers (was it Orange County, Florida?) the number of car thefts are down.
The only problem with "The Trap" is the crook can still jump out and run. But as a cop on the segment said "We'd rather have a foot chase than a car chase any day."
Now we're on to something!

This is not fully complete, and yet is, of course, too long. I'll put some data here later, on the legal status of high speed chases in the US, together with some more comments and responses to additonal previous posts of others here.

OK. I think we have most of the stances and argumentative points on this issue laid out here at this point. It's true that we don't have enough available or ought-to-be-but-are-officially-or-unofficially-secluded statistics and anecdotes on law-enforcement high-speed chases (HSCs) -- and also info, and evaluative judgment on alternatives to the HSC practice -- out here yet. But I have some further questions, which should, as a byproduct, justify keeping this thread longer in GQ.

Let's compare where Nemo the Lesser pitches anchor compared to where I do, since the two of us obviously float very far apart:

I have never personally been involved in any HSC in any role, had any friend or relative involved in one, or even witnessed one in real time and place. I can't recall ever thinking about such while driving, but I have continually read about them, particularly in the state of CA, in which I live, actually in NorCal (where seldom are helicopters used in them). Sometime back, when I certainly recall many fewer such chases (as opposed to what the Big Bear remembers (though apparently from SoCal, which mostly uses helicopters, apparently)) -- I started noting the high numbers of deaths and serious injuries inflicted by such chases on persons having no intended involvement with them whatsoever, mainly in the SF Bay Area locally. At one point the CA Hwy. Patrol (CHP) announced a forthcoming publicly attainable report on the circumstances and outcomes (supposedly) of HSCs throughout the state by all jurisdictions, based essentially on the fact that they investigated all the controversial ones of other jurisdictions and on the fact that people were becoming critical of the circumstances under which many of these were undertaken, in light of many disastrous results. This bureaucracy put much effort into this propaganda, with all sorts claims about restrictions put on chases according as the local congestion and nature of the fugitive. When finally the report came out (at which time I obtained a copy), it, of course, did a lot of concluding as to how safe, overall, these chases had been. But by that time, there'd been so many adverse ones perpetrated under totally unadvisable conditions, the whole report had become a joke and a total waste of public funding (not that that's very unique in CA.US).

El Nemito accuses me of "hav issues here other than simply objecting to the dangers of HSCs." I don't know what he thinks these might be, but I think he's really just using this phrase to cover for our very different anchorages. I could just as legitimately (or not so) throw such a comment at him on the basis of his throwing his anchor on my endangered abalones. Let's go to first principles: What is the purpose of laws and law enforcement? In general, you can say, at first glance, they are to favor those in power, who make the laws and can provide for their enforcement; but you also have to consider overthrow of those powers, in cases where too many slights against those [i]not in power could rock the boat enough to sink it. In a more sophisticated, more developed society, which has attained a considerable stability, you would figure that concern should be had for what some of the others not in power, and some of those not even holding the majority legal and law-enforcement positions, think about what's presently regularly going down in the name of law and the enforcement thereof, in terms what the bottom-line maintenance-vs.-destruction/disruption of the social order is actually turning out to be, under the present laws and procedures. After all, we did see some of this expressed horror, and resultant social disarray, as a result of the actual facts of our foreign-policy, toward the end of the Viet Nam War.

I say that, in a democratic republic (which we presume we are), on the first level of analysis and on the level of highest precedence -- whatever the state of the republic's technological development or other means of avoidance of the issue, the parameters that should be weighed against each other, in any HSC, or in predetermination of policy as to any given category of chase, must be between the probabilities and/or numbers of the deaths or serious injuries to persons, graded as to nonculpability, under the two circumstances of chase or no chase, or possibly under more options of chase conditioned on eventualities. I vehemently oppose this position of mine to hansel's expressed value placed upon "number of innocents killed versus [] number of serious felons apprehended. I would not term this stance one of having additional "issues", as Little N would have it; it is one of coming from a different basic moral foundation. The essence of law enforcement should be that of protection of the public in general, not apprehension for punishment of violators of the law. The latter should be only a conditioned means of attaining the former. I preimpose all of the above, independent of whether or not there are technological or other means of circumventing HSCs. In general, I don't say there never should be any, but I condition all of them heavily upon the chase environment and the amount and nature of knowledge, available to the would-be chasers and their superiors, of the fugitive and his motives. All of the above clearly covers nothing other than the issue of "danger of HSCs", O Little One. And the weighing of number of deaths of innocents against number of apprehensions of "serious felons" certainly is disgusting, particularly as it chimes in in CA.US, since almost every little crime is now a felony (Orange County, SoCal: 13-yr-old charged thus (http://wire.ap.org/APnews/main.html?FRONTID=HOME), for stealing 150-card Pokémon collection from another kid [Click 'here' on AP home page and search for article on AP Wire]) or wobbler, and 'serious' means absolutely nothing at all, except law enforcement or some segment of the public is currently having particular problems with it at present. Crimes here get labeled 'violent' when they're not, in standard parlance -- and when they are just too far from the notion of violence, they get labeled (officially and otherwise) 'serious'. All this keeps disrupting the intercoherence of varopis sections of the CA Peanl Code.

Nemo states, across the board, that all the proper segments of government and society favor HSCs in "many" circumstances. I really read his "many" as 'almost all'. I am not taking the position that no HSCs should ever occur. I am taking the position that far fewer should than presently do. . .for very fundamental and valid reasons. Nemo credits all 1) law enforcement agencies, 2) the governments to which they report, and 3) the electorate with holding to his standard of justification of HSCs. Over all the US, and those parts of Canada that indulge, there exists quite a range of degrees of indulgence; but I point out in this thread all the evidence that most of the more indulgent jurisdictions, in their exercise of HSCs to the extent they actually do, are violently making a mockery of government-by-the-people and responsible government of any sort.

I agree that the success of recruitment of police is based on inherent drives inherent, in those who would be recruits, to "get their man"; but after hiring these people, those who are supposed to be in rational charge of them are expected, by their respective employing governments and the electorates thereof, to fully train and highly modify and moderate the correlate impulses of such recruits. I admit that a large segment of the electorate often goes bonkers over tragedies caused by criminals, and politicians and bureaucrats start disrupting the order as a result -- hence CA's Three Strikes law,

[NanoByte]

The link to the 1996 Dateline on HSCs should've been:
http://www.msnbc.com/onair/nbc/dateline/transcripts/sep0196.asp

sorry.

Ray

[Little Nemo]

To be continued? Honestly NanoByte, what's left to say? Honored as I am to be the apparent target of your post, I'll have to admit I didn't read all the way through it.

You seem to be moving into areas that don't directly refer to the issue at hand. I'll agree that the responsibility of the government to the electorate, the Vietnam War protest movement, racial relations in America, and the fate of endangered abalones are all interesting topics, but let us focus here.

To recast your OP in a more neutral tone, you could have asked: "People's lives are placed at risk during high speed police chases of fleeing suspects. Does the need to apprehend these suspects justify the risk?" See how easy that would have been. No need to describe it as "bloody sport" that "gnaws at the very concept of civilization." Readers might suspect you lack impartiality.

As for my opinions on this issue, I have nothing further beyond what I already said in my previous post.

[hansel]

While comprehensive, nationwide statistics would be ideal, any evidence that claims a certain generality is necessary here. As long as this debate remains anecdotal, it's going nowhere.

------------------
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.

[RBrown9454]

Hey NanoBrain ... oops, byte,
It is because of weak liberal positions such as yours that I will, as of 20 Dec 99, throw my badge on the table and walk away from a 13 year service career wearing a badge. Law enforcement personel are directed and expected to do a difficult task which relatively few choose to attempt. Yet we have been so stripped of the tools necessary to do the job that a difficult job has now become virtually impossible. Before you trash the cops why don't you try being one...then come back and tell me what you think.

[DSYoungEsq]

First, obtain valid statistics as to how many police chases reach speeds significantly (say 20 mph) in excess of the local posted limit (hell, most drives exceed them by at least 10 mph).

Second, find out what percentage of those chased turn out to be charged with felony offenses not related to the chase itself.

When you have this data, then and only then can you legitimately discuss the issue in the original post.

[hansel]

Well, RBrown, maybe when cops stop sodomizing immigrants in custody with toilet plungers (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19991213/ts/crime_louima_4.html), guarding the warehouses of drug kingpins (and murdering witnesses) (http://store.aetv.com/cgi-bin/ae.storefront/1290883293/Product/View/16069), and shooting unarmed shoplifters in the back of the head while they're handcuffed and face down on the sidewalk (I was in Montreal for this one), then weak liberals like Nano and I will quit trying to limit police power to reasonable levels.

There are two cops in my family: this isn't kneejerk, "criminal's rights" brainwashing, it's the opinion of someone who knows how hard it is to be a cop, and still thinks that the extra power granted to police officers demands extra accountability.

------------------
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.

[RBrown9454]

Hey hansel,
That is a jerk reaction. Do the job don't just listen to someone else describe it. You have no CONCEPT !!! When told to do a task but stripped of the tools required to do the task by managers who are afraid of lawyers, you cannot succeed. Having dealt with that level of constant frustration and bullshit for so long I am not at all surprised that some officers snap. What does surprise me is that so many don't snap and do struggle on for so long !! I've seen a lot good officers come and go. The longer this "LEFTIST" system remains in place, the worse it will get and the more will bail out of the system. Be careful what you wish for "hansel" you just might get it. ("And then when the Devil turns round how will you stand in the winds that will blow?? Where will you hide ??")

rb

[hansel]

You know, I'm glad you're not going to be a cop anymore. I would never want to meet someone as bitter and self-pitying as you, who happened to be carrying a gun and a badge. The cop in Montreal who executed the shoplifter was found to have "accidentally" discharged his weapon, and was not held responsible. Are you telling me that you need more "tools" than that to do your job?

I've never assumed that it was easy to be a cop, or that it's just a power trip. Even you have to admit that when people don't feel safe from the police, then there's something wrong with the way the police are doing their jobs.

And what the hell is all this "LEFTIST" crap? I just read in the paper this morning that the U.S. prison population will surpass 2,000,000 in February, which is a 1000 % increase since 1970, and will make up 25% of the world's prison population, when the U.S. has only 5% of the world's population. Anyone on the outside looking in would swear it's a police state here. This is a society where the police have insufficient "tools" to do their jobs?

------------------
Never attribute to an -ism anything more easily explained by common, human stupidity.

[Monty]

Gee, Nano; it was damn nice of you to conveniently leave off a few facts about the case you mentioned in the OP, not to mention the loaded title you selected.

Fact 1) The Oakland Police Department supervises high speed chases and calls the chase off once it's deemed too dangerous.

Fact 2) The particular chase in question had just started when the CRIMINAL BEHIND THE WHEEL killed somebody.

Fact 3) The CRIMINIAL BEHIND THE WHEEL knowing damn well he'd just hit someone DUE TO HIS OWN CRIMINAL & FELONIOUS ACTION jumped out of the car and ran from the police.

Fact 4) The CRIMINAL BEHIND THE WHEEL was driving on a suspended license.

Fact 5) The CRIMINAL BEHIND THE WHEEL had his license suspended due to previous instances of SPEEDING AND DANGEROUS DRIVING!

Fact 6) You really need to learn how to present an honest argument.

[JamesCarroll]

Einstein once said "If you can't explain something to a six year old you don't really understand it yourself". After reading NanoBrain's seemingly endless (my connection actually timed out) let me phrase this so even NB can understand.

If you do something wrong, you will be punished. Now.

Selling drugs is wrong. Running from the police is wrong. Causing others to be hurt while trying to avoid taking responsibility for you actions is wrong. You will be punished. You must be punished. PERIOD.

Seem harsh? Perhaps, but take a look at Singapore. Punishments there are quick and sure. And you can walk the streets at night. Why? Is it because the people live in fear of their government. Absolutely, not! These people love the police and their system (if they didn't they would leave, its a free country). Or take a look at some of the Islamic countries. They have strict codes and little crime. Why? Because their peoples have developed a strong code of right and wrong and they realize that for the good of society (and the person involved) that wrong MUST be punished. Everytime.

I find it quite telling that these happen so often on the Left Coast. Your "if it feels good do it California groovin'" has finally caught up with you. You've created a culture that eschews personal responsibility. It is YOU and those like you who are out of touch. You've created a societal sess pool. Too bad you feel it necessary to put down the only people doing anything to clean up YOUR mess.

[Little Nemo]

Now we seem to be swinging too far the other way. There is definite room for improvement in law enforcement. I'm in the business myself but I don't believe that just because I have a badge and a stressful job, I'm entitled to break laws with impunity. As far as I'm concerned, when cops torture or murder suspects or use their power to protect their own criminal activities, they must be stopped and other police officers must be willing to testify against them. Only a small handful of cops are initiating these crimes but unfortunately the majority of their fellows feel they must protect them by their silence. Criminals with badges are still criminals, and the majority of police officers, who are good people, should be working to put them behind bars.