Can anyone justify car chases? (involving the police)

[Tony_Montana]

*Originally posted by Ringo *
**That’s my point. The helicopter approach I mentioned might do away with some of the high-speed shennanigans while still allowing for a conclusion of the event with a successful arrest. But, the cop in the chopper is unable to intercede in events on the ground, so there’s some uncontrolled moments whenever the suspect finally (and it will happen eventually) exits the vehicle. Plenty of time for more mayhem.

So, not a perfect solution by any means; but perhaps better than unrestricted chases. I certainly could not see not allowing any police pursuits. **

Are you suggesting chopper-only chases?Or chopper/cruiser chases. If its the latter,then that sounds a lot like what happens already

[pepperlandgirl]

I hope someone comes up with a viable alternative to police chases. Last July, I probably would have been critically injured and/or died if I had been just a few feet forward. A car in the middle of a high speed chase hit the car in front of me, at a red light, at a very high speed. I was so close to the car that when the criminals got out and started running, they literally were within touching distance.
Scared the fuck out of me. Fortunately, nobody was hurt, but the people hit were in a large SUV. If the car had hit my little car though…well, I really don’t think I would have made it…

[JohnT]

*Originally posted by vandal *
**Can anyone justify car chases? Well, that depends.

If a suspect is fleeing to avoid getting caught with the dime bag of pot he has, I think the police could just let that one go.

On the other hand, if there’s a criminal who is on his way to an elementary school to blow it up, then that’s a different story.

So, it boils down to the necessity of the suspect’s capture. As in, how important is it that he be stopped? **

Then the real question is: how do you tell which is which (the bomber or the pothead) before trying to pull him over? And when they don’t pull over, how do you then make that determination based upon the way the suspect is NOT pulling over?

[Tony_Montana]

I am glad no one was hurt

*Originally posted by pepperlandgirl *
I hope someone comes up with a viable alternative to police chases

So do I , I saw a TV program where they were working on solutions,IIRC there were still major obstacles to overcome.
But to suggest we just let them go is insane IMHO. There will always be criminals, there will always be criminals who will run,as far as I can see there will always be cars,you get the idea…

[Tony_Montana]

*Originally posted by JohnT *
how do you then make that determination based upon the way the suspect is NOT pulling over?

IIRC there are some police agencies who leave it to the officers discretion. When I lived in Vallejo CA I heard on my police scanner one suspect get away,it sounded like they called off the chase. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be a cop,making those decisions on a regular basis…

[Mikahw]

Why follow the criminal? Just get his plate, get a good glimpse of him, and alert authorities in nearby areas and counties. Then what can the criminal do?

What are the police going to do if all the criminal has to do to escape them is to get in his car and start moving? Sure he has to run out of gas sometime, but what are the chances that the local police are actually at the gas station at the time, unless they’re following him? What do they do when they see the car driving down the road? After all, they can’t chase it or anything.

[Tony_Montana]

*Originally posted by Lobsang *
A criminal not being chased might be dangerous, but I am willing to bet that that the vast majority of un-chased criminals would be far far less dangerous (on average) than chased criminals.

How much are you willing to bet? Lets just not chase them then and hope they will miraculously cease to be dangers to the community and maybe turn themselves in too…

[Tony_Montana]

*Originally posted by Splanky *
I sort of agree with the OP.

Don’t flounder young’n…

Why follow the criminal? Just get his plate, get a good glimpse of him, and alert authorities in nearby areas and counties.

Then what? give chase? oh wait…:smack:

[Ringo]

Tony, in essence, I agree with you - it would be absolute folly to establish “no chase” as the rule. I was thinking some of the more spectacular bad stuff that comes from chases might be avoided by relying more heavily on the chopper to do the chasing. I’ve already pointed out where the weak spot is with that.

Maybe if we could track 'em with a Blackhawk full of cops…(just kidding – I can’t imagine how many Bell OH58s you could buy for the cost of one Blackhawk).

[Enderw24]

The cops pulled the driver over because he broke the law.
When he pulls away and tries to outrun the police he’s breaking the law.
The chances are very high that the reason he’s evading capture is because he’s previously broken a law far more serious than the traffic violation he was originally stopped for.

That’s three strikes people. I just don’t get why people are blaming the police here. These chases are the fault of the person who initiates the chase. I know we’re in the pit but…I just don’t see the debate here.

[Lobsang]

Enderw24 this is not a debate. It’s a rant. If it must be a debate then it is this - what is more important, the ‘law’ or HUMAN BLOODY LIFE!
I am not saying let people off scott free. I am just saying chasing them is just about the stupidest thing the police can do to deal with them.

[Tony_Montana]

*Originally posted by Lobsang *
**Enderw24 this is not a debate. It’s a rant. If it must be a debate then it is this - what is more important, the ‘law’ or HUMAN BLOODY LIFE!

ahhh but you fail to see the flip-side Lob.let the murderer run so he can murder again?Its happened

[quote]

I am not saying let people off scott free.
[/qoute]
But you are in a sense, If they know for certain they wont be chased…

I am just saying chasing them is just about the stupidest thing the police can do to deal with them. **

Yeah that or just letting them casually drive off into the sunset,never to be seen again…

[Enderw24]

I know it’s a rant. That doesn’t mean it can’t be debated. If you don’t want the police to chase criminals and you provide no alternate solutions then you ARE saying to let people off scot free.

[SenorBeef]

*Originally posted by Lobsang *
**SenorBeef. Who cares about a stolen car (for instance) if it means a few children are still alive. children that might have been smashed to pieces by a criminal who lost control due to being frightened of the police following close behind.

**

“INNOCENT CHILDREN ARE DYING!!!” hysterics really turn me off.

**

A criminal not being chased might be dangerous, but I am willing to bet that that the vast majority of un-chased criminals would be far far less dangerous (on average) than chased criminals. **

It strikes me that those motivated enough to run from the cops are probably up to some pretty serious shit.

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by Lobsang *
**Right now I am watching complete madness on TV. And it’s not the criminal that is mad - the criminal is just a frightened irrational person - It’s the police! The police have all the power in this situation. . **

Oh, I get it. The criminal is a victim! Of victim of the cruel and brutal police state.

So when a carjacker shoots you in the head and dumps your body on the street and takes off on your car, I guess the cops shouldn’t chase after him. He’s just a frightened irrational, powerless person after all. (don’t tell me it doesn’t happen. It happens here in LA, it happens in New York, Chicago, Miami, etc…)

Fuck that nonsense. If a person leads the police on a chase, then that person is a fucking dangerous indivdual with no concern for the safety of his fellow citizens. Period. Anything that happens as a result of the chase is the criminals fault. Period.

Here’s a clue. When you see the police lights in your rear view mirror, pull the fuck over and stop. How hard is that???

[Kaitlyn]

If you don’t chase him HE WON’T RUN! Understand?

You have this exactly backwards. The police cannot chase them until they run. You cannot chase someone who has stopped when signaled to do so.

The utility of the chase comes from the deterrent effect. If I know that the police aren’t allowed to chase me, I’m much more likely to run when the police attempt to pull me over. If I’m say, carrying drugs, I have a pretty good incentive to run–I’m guaranteed to get away.

People who run do so because they have some reason other than a routine traffic violation to hide. The fact that they are running creates the presumption that there is some reason for them to run.

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by Lobsang *
**Enderw24 this is not a debate. It’s a rant. If it must be a debate then it is this - what is more important, the ‘law’ or HUMAN BLOODY LIFE!
I am not saying let people off scott free. I am just saying chasing them is just about the stupidest thing the police can do to deal with them. **

First off, despite the news coverage, police chases usually end in capture, without injury to any bystanders.

Second, how can the police deal with them if they don’t catch them?? They can’t.

I’ve heard people say “Why not just let the helicopters chase them, and pick them up later?” Well, the biggest reason is there aren’t that many helicopters! Even in LA. Another reason is this: if you’ve stolen a car after depositing it’s owner in the trunk, and all you’ve got is helicopter chasing after you, you just have to drive to a populated place, abandon the vehicle, and blend in to the crowd. Once you enter a building, or a subway, the helicopter has lost you. And helicopter pilots are NOT going to be able to identify you, even if you are apprehended later. You don’t think it would difficult to convict such a person? Then you are not familiar with the history of court cases in Los Angeles.

[msmith537]

*Originally posted by Lobsang *
Right now I am watching complete madness on TV. And it’s not the criminal that is mad - the criminal is just a frightened irrational person - It’s the police! The police have all the power in this situation. They choose to make the situation a dangerous one.
**

I have a better solution. Stop watching Fox. I’m sick of this bullshit where people feel that nothing is the criminals fault. I was always taught that when you see those blue lights behind you…PULL THE FUCK OVER!! What excuse does a person posibly have for trying to outrun them? They are only frightened and irrational because they have committed a crime! If some jackass runs from the cops, they should be personally held responsible for every bit of damage caused by the ensuing chase.

[Badge]

Sorry I’m late. Let me try to be succinct.

1. A police officer initiates the car stop. The suspect initiates the pursuit (by taking off).

2. I’m not aware of any state that has totally banned police chases. I do know of individual police agencies that have done so, however.

3. Hello, Opal. May I see your license, registration and proof of insurance, please?

4. The vast majority of police agencies do not have a helicopter available to handle chases. And while they can be useful and certainly reduce the risk inherent in pursuits, they are not a perfect solution. The helicopter can follow the car fine, but unless there is a patrol car nearby when the person abandons the car, the suspect will get away.

5. The suggestion to “get the plate and get a look at the driver” sounds good, but doesn’t work well in the real world. I know this from many years of experience on the street. If the car is stolen or the plates are switched, that gives you no useful information. When I initiate a stop, I’m behind the car, and during a chase there is rarely a chance to get a good look at the driver. However, if the driver can be identified later, then the pursuit should probably be called off.

6. We don’t usually know why the person is running (unless we were stopping them because they are a suspect in a known crime). Many are running because they know that they have committed a worse crime than what triggered the original stop. However, many are running for really stupid reasons, like they don’t have insurance or their license is expired. Just because they run doesn’t automatically justify a dangerous pursuit based on the assumption that they have done something really serious that we just don’t know about yet.

7. I believe that the best solution is a responsible policy and a requirement that the officer involved use discretion and common sense. We cannot ban all chases because no one would ever stop for the cops again, and because some really dangerous people would get away. We can’t chase every minor infraction because the risk is too great.

There is an old saying in police work: “Cops and terriers cannot resist chasing anything that runs”. We have to work to overcome that instinct and consider the dangers a pursuit creates.

I think that my agency has an excellent policy on pursuits. It requires us to constantly consider the danger to the public compared to the crime the person has committed and the danger he or she may pose if allowed to get away. All officers involved in a pursuit and the supervisor overseeing it are held accountable for making that determination, and calling the pursuit off when the danger becomes too great. We are also not allowed to pursue for only traffic offenses, and if the suspect can be identified and caught later, the pursuit must be ended immediately.
And lobsang, if you believe that "chasing them is just about the stupidest thing the police can do to deal with them, what would you say is the smartest thing we can do to deal with fleeing criminals?

[GusNSpot]

*Originally posted by Badge *
**
And lobsang, if you believe that "chasing them is just about the stupidest thing the police can do to deal with them, what would you say is the smartest thing we can do to deal with fleeing criminals? **

Make lobsang or lobsang’s child a victim just once? Might get a better idea, you think? :rolleyes: