Sure, they’re more dangerous—more dangerous while they’re running. Plus, the cops themselves are more dangerous, too, while they’re pursuing. The perps are running, the cops are pursuing; the perps are running harder and faster, the cops a pursuing more determinedly and doggedly. They become the goad. In the vast majority (at least as I seem to remember from the few Cops & Robber shows I’ve seen on television in the past few years – not that that is anything but anecdotal) of the chases, the cops are pursuing a guy, not for an armed robbery, or rape, or some other violent act, but because he refused to pull over for lousy drug or traffic violation. Most of the people being pursued don’t have a history of violence, nor is the crime they’re being chased for anything particularly serious.
Hell, in a recent incident here in Toledo (May 2005), the cops put aloft their helicopter to pursue a couple teenagers who swiped a car to take a joyride – on the word of a 10 year old that that’s what had happened. Seems like a far greater expenditure of resources than the situation would call for. Plus it seems far more likely to that it would actually create a dangerous situation than would typically be the case.
I strongly disagree and can argue the same set of facts around the same circle in the opposite direction with equal logic. I believe it is possible to instill discipline and professionalism without resorting to supplying cops with a large numbers of automatic weapons, armored vehicles, pursuit helicopters, explosives, etc. What happens is that when these types of items are supplied to the cops, and admittedly done so out of genuine concern for public safety, is that in order to continue providing justification of the purchase of these items, the personnel needed to man them, and the budgets required to keep them operational and available, the cops will just find more reasons to use them. Thus, a self-feeding circle is established. One that can be particularly violent and is escalated mutually by the law enforcement agency and the criminals.
Further, giving patrol cops more power to use their judgment in a given set of circumstances, rather than responding by rote as the line grunt in a military organization is trained to do, should help a police organization as a whole accomplish their mission more effectively. Remember, that mission, as is, or was, painted on the sides of so many police cruisers, is “To Protect & Serve.” This is in direct conflict with the military’s role which is “Seek & Destroy.” I deny that transforming a public service agency into a militaristic endeavor is in the public’s best interest.
Mebbe so, but there seem to be more full-scale assaults with more dire consequences than used to be, too. Plus, I think you might be neglecting the role racism played in the unlawful actions of the previous generations of cops. I agree entirely that the more professional a police agency can be made to be, the better able they’ll be to protect society. But I don’t think militarization makes them more professional. If anything, it moves them away from the “compassionate advocate” end of the spectrum and towards the “armed opposition.”