-
-
- 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
-
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
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[ing] 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 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, 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,
The link to the 1996 Dateline on HSCs should’ve been:
http://www.msnbc.com/onair/nbc/dateline/transcripts/sep0196.asp
sorry.
Ray
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, RBrown, maybe when cops stop sodomizing immigrants in custody with toilet plungers, guarding the warehouses of drug kingpins (and murdering witnesses), 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.