I just hope it doesn’t catch on nationally. Can you imagine how boring the show “COPS” will be if they’re not allowed any pursuits? Every episode will be a half-hour of police driving in patrol cars, blustering about why they got into law enforcement. (Which they already do anyway, but only for 30 seconds or so, which is easily FFW’d past so I can get to the good stuff.)
Are police helicopters really that expensive in America? They’re the norm here, even in my relatively crime-free home. In a place like this, they can be the quickest way to respond to an emergency, both on rural roads and also in awkward places to reach along the coast. In a city, they’re by far the easiest way to track vehicles. Living in a flat with a decent view of a shithole part of Manchester, we could tell which roads they were following stolen cars on by the location of the helicopter spotights.
But if an Officer testifies they saw him driving the car, that adds Perjury, filing a fasle report and he loses his car. How many dudes do you think will get rid of their car to get out of a speeding ticket? :dubious:
Besides- so he gets away. So? It’s a speeding ticket, how is that worth a life?
Oh God, we get very worthy versions of these programmes, with the ‘educational’ aspect hammered home. We do make up for it with plenty of CCTV in town centres, though, providing lots of footage of good old fighting.
So just how good an ID are you going to get from what, a hundred feet away?
Defense Attorney: So how far away from the car were you?
Officer: About a hundred feet
Defense Attorney: Why weren’t you closer?
Officer: I was traveling 75 MPH
Defense Attorney: So what did the driver look like?
Officer: He appeared to be a Mexican American
Defense Attorney: So tell me officer, just how many Mexican Americans are there in Southern California?
Officer: I’m not sure, 4 or 5 million I guess.
Jury :rolleyes: (<-Reasonable doubt has been established)
Well here in the real world [sup]TM[/sup] I have seen hit and run drivers get out of responsibility for their acts by claiming their car was stolen.
The officer can always add additional identifying information, like “he was wearing a cowboy hat and had a mustache,” that will narrow it down precisely.
Defense Attorney: Is anyone here in the court wearing a cowboy hat?
Officer: No
Defense Attorney: How many people in this courtroom have mustaches?
Officer: including the judge and bailiff eight.
jury :rolleyes:
Yeah, from 4-5 million (I’m sure it’s considerably higher than that, but we’ll use that number as an example), to let’s say 1-5% of that figure, or 40,000 to 25,000 individuals. Oh yeah, that narrows it down.
I work on a college campus where we have roughly 50 cameras. We’ve had more than a few incidents in the relatively short time I’ve been there where we can watch an entire incident go down and still not be able to clearly, beyond reasonable doubt, establish the identity of the person on the camera.
(White or Black) male in his 20’s, roughly 5’7" to 6’ tall, wearing a hooded grey sweater and jeans. Fuck yeah, we’ll find that guy!!! Put out an APB!
Once you’ve lost sight of someone, they instantly have reasonable doubt as to whether or not they are the person you saw, unless you saw them up close and personal for a period of time and are reasonably skilled at observation.
My point exactly.
Wait a minute, I don’t understand your logic here. What does a fascist government have to do with speed limiters?
Which is it?
-
The government would be bad to impose a speed limiter on a car, because there really are no speed limits.
-
Putting a speed limiter on car restricts our rights as citizens. If so, what rights? To go above posted speed limits, breaking the law? Are you saying that it’s our RIGHT to break the law and it would be Nazi-like to make it impossible to break the law?
Really, throwing out a “Nazi” is fucking garbage.
Sheesh. By the time the high speed chase starts, the dude has already run the red light. All they do by chasing him is maximise the odds he is going to do it again.
Or they can fingerprint the car. 
Defense attorney: did you dust the car for finger prints?
fingerprint expert : Yes
Defense attorney: Did you find any usable prints?
fingerprint expert : Yes
Defense attorney: Who did they belong to?
fingerprint expert : The defendant
Defense attorney: Well since the car belongs to the defendant, would you expect to find his finger prints in it?
fingerprint expert : Well, yes.
Defense attorney: do you have any way of telling just when these fingerprints were left?
fingerprint expert : No, I have no way of knowing.
Defense attorney: So they could have been left there from a month before the incident?
fingerprint expert : Yes.
Jury :rolleyes:
Well that settles it then. Speed transponders built into the onboard computer program that can receive a PD message to disable the engine. Disabling the device triggers a detenator which destroys the engine compartment. So when a high speed chase is imminent, the cops check with the local AWACS to identify and disable the suspect vehicle and hey, why not lock the doors as well to prevent a foot chase!
It really is the best solution. If you’re not a bad guy you won’t even be aware of the system so you have nothing to worry about.
I like the Predator/Hellfire solution myself. Less cost for Detroit. The NLR cops could have blown up that speeding miscreant instead of endangering Mrs. Plant No.1 and myself with firearms.
I like the idea of a technological solution, here. However, I think blowing up the engine remotely leaves a high potential for hackers to abuse it. People shutting down cars on the freeway for fun can’t be good.
I think some sort of proximity thing would be cool. If a police cruiser enables the device, all vehicles within X distance will be limited to Y speed. Takes the “high speed” part out of the equation, and a hacker would just be an annoyance rather than a danger.
Guess I might’ve made it clearer that I was joking. Here’s a revised version:
“The officer can always add additional identifying information, like ‘the driver was wearing a cowboy hat and had a mustache.’ That should narrow the pool down to about half. Most of them men.” <rimshot>
Dudes have been convicted of Murder on eyewitness testimony worse than that. Based upon your “slippery slope” then unless the cops actually catch criminals in the act, there is no use going forward with charges. :rolleyes:
There is a huge difference is standing somewhere and watching a person that is 100 feet away then later identifying them in court, and driving a police car flat out in a pursuit, watching out for other cars, pedestrians, working the radio to inform your superiors, making a decisions about continuing the pursuit, AND trying to find enough extra brain cells and time to look at the the driver you are pursing in order to be able to correctly identify them in court later.
Also don’t forget that the officer will probably be staring at the back of the suspects head.
How well can you ID someone from the back of their head while doing all of the things I listed?
I’m sorry if you think it is a slippery slope, but it is that damn beyond a reasonable doubt thing. If you could get the constitution changed to because I think he did it as the standard, it would eliminate these problems. :rolleyes:
I am just pointing out what any defense attorney would. The burden of proof is on the state, if they can’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the suspect walks. In the real world that is not often easy, practical, or sometimes possible.
If you’re a parent, and you see this sister whack her brother on the bean with a mop handle, you try to talk to her, right? And what if she runs away from you and starts knocking kids on the noggin as you chase her through the playground? You still try to stop her. At some point you may consider backing off, but you’d be either lying or a terrible parent if your initial reaction is to just let her run off and knock other kids.
Running red lights is pretty damn serious - it causes almost a thousand deaths every year:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/interbriefing/07redl.htm
And your response is not to pit the fucker who ran the red light, but to pit the cops who try to stop him. You’d have a point if you didn’t try to paint it black and white when there are shades of grey.
-
Cops can’t just ignore a dangerous driver. We pay them to do the opposite. If this guy had killed someone running the red light, a pit of the cop who didn’t try to stop him would be justified.
-
The pursuit lasted 20 minutes. Do the cops in this case had a policy of when a pursuit is stopped?
-
The pursuit reached 100 mph. Was the pursuit consistently at that speed or did the red light runner attain that speed later? Did the cops then start discussing calling off the pursuit? Was the pursuit actually called off, the suspect continues to speed for the next two minutes to escape, and then hits oncoming traffic?
-
How could anyone know once the pursuit stops this guy’s going to start driving safely? He wasn’t driving safely before the pursuit.
The guy who ran the red light was an asshole playing with other people’s lives. It goes beyond the knowledge of anyone in this thread to issue a blanket judgement of the cops as assholes without knowing more about specifically what happened.