I’ve already answered this, a couple different times/ways. I don’t think repeating it again will make my argument any more clear - Either you already get it, or you’re simply not open to persuasion by me.
Is this the answer that you already gave? The police have to assume that every person with a bad blinker is Charlie Manson and give chase?
I don’t think you have answered my question. In fact, I think you’re dodging it. I’m open to persuasion. You’re just not offering it.
Again. 80% of these car chases are going after traffic violations. Given the statistic, do you think that the risks inherent in car chases are worth it? If so, why?
I wonder why no one comes in my yard and is rude to me?
I wonder what the crime rate would do in LA if “no chase” was instigated?
Why do people only want to restrict people and save lives in areas that don’t normally effect them?
Are these same people willing to up their own taxes to pay for the added measures that will be needed to keep the level of cases solved at their miserable existing level much less improve the solve rate?
The police know their license #, and they come to the house with a warrent and back up? So no innocents are in danger, and the simple traffic violation is now a much more serious crime?
That was one of them.
80%, eh? So one time in five, it’s going to be something else - Those are pretty bad odds. If an officer makes two stops a day, that means two serious risks every five days. Didn’t think about it that way, didja?
That’s right. Two serious ones out of every five days for every police officer guaranteed or your money back.
More likely that not the twenty percent would be stolen vehicles, suspects fleeing a more serious crime, etc. and not just a blind twenty percent of all vehicles chased down the road for traffic violations have actually commited a more serious crime and were only caught because they were speeding.
What the 80% figure says to me is only twenty precent of these chases were actually justified by the offenses and that eighty percent could likely be just as well served by taking the plate number down and mailing a ticket.
But of course you thought of that already.
Except that the officer has no way of knowing which is which… that busted taillight running away at speed may very well be something else - Something much more serious. Or are you suggesting that officers stoip making traffic stops?
But I answered this one already too - You simply don’t understand, and I leave you that way, because that’s the way you seem to want to remain.
And again I repeat, 80% of the time when they think that they are going after something more serious than a busted taillight they are wrong. A twenty percent hit rate is not a success or a justification for extreme measures.
You also seem to be assuming that police officers are operating in a total information vacuum in which they have no way of checking if the car they have been following has been used in a more serious crime, stolen, or just ran a red light.
No, I am not suggesting that police officers stop making traffic stops. Don’t be so stupid. What I am suggesting is that better rules regarding the use of police chases would reduce the number of chases and thusly reduce the amount of damage caused by them.
As I said before, if you have another argument I would be glad to hear it. I’m just not buying that 20% justifies the risks involved.
What are the consequences of engaging the police in a chase? If most of the people being chased are running even though they’ve only committed a traffic violation or other reasonably minor offense, it seems to me the easiest answer is to institute harsher penalties for running. In an ideal system, people who have committed minor offenses won’t think it worth it to run if the consequences of running are more dire than that of whatever offense they have committed. Therefore, most of those running would be those who have more at stake than minor violations of the law, especially if police do make it SOP to give chase (assuming, of course, that they catch a significant percentage of those who run).
So, since we seem to have some experts here, what are the consequences of running?
I see. So if they attempt to pull someone over, and that person drives off at full speed, the cops need to go around and “ask people”? They need to sniff around and ask, “Say, do you know if the fella that just took off was an axe murderer? Or was he simply spooked because he had a joint of marijuana in his trunk?”
Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
Exactly right.
The only way to eliminate traffic stops is to eliminate traffic.
As long as criminals have access to vehicles, they can move around and commit crimes everywhere! Vehicles should be for official purposes only.
…this rule would make about as much sense as some of the solutions that are being suggested.
When the police are paramilitary, and they have a “us vs. them” mentality toward “civilians,” and when the rules are made so that the police can do their jobs more quickly and efficiently without regard to “rights”, isn’t that martial law? In fact, but not name?
Perhaps you missed what I was driving at. Cops are a paramilitary unit by their structure. Rank reflects that of a military unit. Commendations reflect bravery in a form of battle. Firearms are primary tools, etc. The equipment isn’t really at issue, though, in the point i was making. It’s the military one-man one-unit mind set that I see as beneficial when combined with, as you said “the power to use their judgement in a given set of circumstances”. The problem in law enforcement is now and has always been a culture of individualism. One officer can effectively handle a multitude of problems, but generally, operation in a team atmosphere was unheard of. The increase in the militaristic thought process shows what a team attitude can do. The issue with that is the fact that the team attitude for patrol officers is in its’ relative adolescence, and the current problems with police tactics are growing pains, little more.
Now, I don’t necessarily argee that every officer should be equipped with a full compliment of military style gear, but there is no denying that there should be specialized units that are and should be completely trained and outfitted to act in extreme or serious circustances. Of course the self-feeding circle is established, because it exists irrespective of the equipment and manpower you throw at the problem you’re trying to solve. More problems, more/better equipment, more people to man it. It’s not always stuff first, reasons later, believe me.
I’ve purchased several hundred thousands of dollars worth of law enforcement technology and equipment in the last 3 years, and before one red cent goes out the door, first there is a need determined, then there are bids, and lastly, there are committees to determine what, when and how much. And after much decision, usually the lowest bidder is chosen, and the purchase made. The beginning of the circle is a problem that comes from the populace, and the need met by the police. People don’t like that, but it’s true.
DrDeth I realize a lot of what you’re saying is based on what seems right, to you, but with all due respect, the way you talk, it seems that you have no idea what you’re going on about.
There is a world of difference between being able to hit a face sized target in a controlled environment vs. when some armored psycho is lobbing a hundred rounds of 7.62x39 ammo in your general direction every few seconds. These chaps had a lot of body armor, and not just on center mass.
Look, the facts of the matter are thus;
-
Police don’t know why the runner is running, they may in fact BE an axe murderer.
-
Police give chase because no matter what other crime the subject may have committed that got him pulled over in the first place, you can add to that fleeing and eluding police, which is some states is a felony. Plus, for every stop light run, for every speed limit broken, and traffic sign disobeyed, there is a new charge.
-
Getting a license number from a car can be meaningless, especially if the car is stolen, or belongs to another criminal.
-
Innocent bystanders are not killed by police officers, they’re killed by shitbags RUNNING from police officers.
-
Penalties already exist for fleeing the police, but unless you catch the actual shitbag, you can’t charge anyone, and frankly, judges are not as strict as they ought to be.
Rights are paramount when most rules are made. There are very few rules that that are made to apply to the populace at large that directly deny a persons constitutional rights (recent patriot act absurdities not withstanding). These rules (such as not running from the police) are made with the safety of that same populace in mind. So to call those rules martial law, is extreme at this point, but i believe we’re headed in that direction unless we change course.
Here’s the rub Dethy you do in fact have to shut up. Freedom of speech is limited to you becoming a public nuisance, which would be the charge (disorderly conduct actually, and on a short form complaint so i get to haul your dumb ass in and tow your car, rather than give you a ticket on the street) i would level if so inclined. Not to mention that there is little reason to get rude with someone who is doing their JOB. As much as you may not like the ticket, perhaps you should not have been exceeding the speed limit, or driving on a suspended license, or with tinted windows or whatever. The police operate, like it or not, on a mutual respect system. We expect respect from the public, and a good officer will return that respect, but giving respect does NOT mean not getting a ticket for screwing up, it means issuing a ticket in a professional manner.
At the risk of repeating a story related previously, I was driving across southwestern Kansas, taking an unplanned detour from I-70 towards I-40. Crawling through a little podunk town behind a few people who were driving 20 MPH slower than the speed limit, I saw a break in the oncoming lane, shifted left, punched the gas, passed all three, and was soon doing 75-80 in a 65 zone. Well out in the country, I pass a few more cars, and see blinking lights way back in my mirror. Pass a few more cars, the lights get closer. Time to back it down to 70. When it’s apparent that the police car is coming for me, the radio goes off, the window goes down, and my thumbs hook under the top of the steering wheel, all fingers in plain view.
LEO: Do you know why I’ve stopped you?
DWC: Yes, Sir. Speeding.
LEO: No, Sir. I’ve stopped you for an illegal pass maneuver.
DWC: Could you explain, please?
LEO: When you passed those 3 cars in Pawnee Creek, the passing zone wasn’t long enough, and when you re-entered the right lane, you crossed a double line.
DWC: You’re right, but Pawnee Creek? That was 10 miles back up the highway.
LEO: Yes, it is, I’ve been doing 140MPH to catch you!
DWC: Now Officer, didn’t I start this conversation by telling you I was speeding?
LEO: Laughing Damn. You got me there. Let’s have a look at your papers.
After checking my license and registration, I got a warning instead of what could have been an expensive ticket, or perhaps a night in the hoosegow of a little Kansas town.
Honesty and candor buys a lot of mileage with police.
Or perhaps Buford T. Justice the Jackass should’ve realized the danger in doing 140 mph to catch up to someone whose only real infraction was in missing a mark on the pavement.
He put how many other people in danger so that he could catch up to you ten miles down the road and issue a warning for a minor moving violation?
There’s a guy that shouldn’t have a badge.
The fault I find in that logic catsix is that Buford T. had no way of knowing when he observed me effect the illegal pass that I was either (a) some ordinary schlub from PA with a heavy foot or (b) some nutbag who had just sliced and diced Grammy a few blocks away and was absconding with her valuables.
This is the damned if you do, damned if you don’t position which troubles me about law enforcement. The public wants the bad guys caught, but doesn’t want the innocent inconvenienced or endangered. Short of mind chips which enable a patrol officer to determine that you’re speeding because (a) you’re late for work (b) you’ve got to pee © you shot up a crackhouse and stole their shit, how do you want an ordinary patrol officer to effect the chase/don’t chase decision? Any chase can theoretically endanger the public. Stanley Gangbanger drives onto the sidewalk to evade pursuit, and runs over a Girl Scout. That’s the cops fault? :dubious:
I’ll take non-sequiturs for $1000, Alex.
How did his high-speed pursuit change anything? After all, given that the cop didn’t ask to search your car or anything, he still had no way of telling whether you were or were not a granny-slicing nutbag.
Do you believe that cops should work on the assumption that every mistake made on the road, no matter how slight, might indicate the presence of a killer?
Mother of mercy… all he saw you do was make a passing maneuver that was a few feet too many. From that it’s reasonable to assume that you might be an axe murderer? So if someone accidentally makes a right on red where it’s not allowed a cop should floor it and endanger other people too?
This is just lunacy. This is freakin’ testosterone based law enforcement, and I for one wouldn’t want one of these yahoos chasing a dangerous double line breaker while I was on the road.