Speaking of strawmen…
It’s not necessary (or even prudent) to risk life and property of the general public to retrieve other property or to restrain another life.
I don’t know what “strawman” you think I created. I said that someone who pulls a woman driver out of her car, literally throws her to the pavement, and then steals her vehicle is not someone I would want to have loose in the community. Perhaps you feel differently.
The strawman that you would not be able to accomplish removing the suspect from society if high speed pursuits we’re prohibited.
It is a completely unnecessary and often very costly “tool” of law enforcement.
That’s not what I said. I said that this was not someone I’d want to have loose in the community. This was based on the fact that he was clearly desperate and therefore dangerous, having been directly observed committing a serious crime (carjacking) in the process of evading capture for what was very likely an earlier serious crime. Due the pursuit, he was captured within minutes shortly thereafter. If he had not been pursued, he would by definition have been loose in the community for some indeterminate period of time, possibly a long time. Based on all the evidence, this appears to be a good example of where the risks of a pursuit are outweighed by the greater risks of letting such a person run free. You may disagree if you like, but please don’t misrepresent what I said.
Thank you for your permission. I do disagree.
And so does the RCMP.
-
There was a lot more going on in this particular example than just a stolen car, so this is another strawman.
-
Yes, I did say that stolen cars are potentially a big problem, for the three reasons I cited. If the RCMP wants to have an agency-specific policy to prohibit such pursuits, that’s their prerogative, but there is no such legal prohibition in Ontario or Quebec or anywhere else that has a provincial police force (where the RCMP doesn’t generally operate except on federal property) nor, AFAIK, any such policy in any individual police force. The RCMP has had its own extensive litany of problems and abuses and this strikes me as an ass-covering political move rather than one that serves the interests of public safety.
-
And on top of all that, even this silly RCMP political game about not chasing stolen cars does not in any way support your absurd contention that police chases should never be allowed. And I see that you still haven’t even looked at, let alone commented on, the extensive legal limitations and safeguards governing police chases in Ontario.
From strawmen to ad hominem…
I have looked at them, thank you for the cite.
They’re no different then the regs in many jurisdictions.
They acknowledge that pursuits are dangerous and should not be initiated
except…
except…
except…
And Ontario, like every other reg I’ve read, gives extreme amounts of leeway to “officer discretion” in initiating pursuit and lists “fleeing” as an accepted reason.
Bottom line.
High speed pursuit is never the only option.
It carries with it an extremely high societal cost.
It should never be done.
This back-and-forth is getting tedious and sort of pointless so I plan to stop here. Let me just say here that I didn’t create a strawman at any point, and that the term ad hominem doesn’t mean what you apparently think it does. Pointing out that the RCMP has quite a deplorable record of abuses is a matter of record. And that, as a federal agency with a horrible reputation, they may be more interested in rehabilitating their public image than in advancing the cause of public safety is hardly an ad hominem. No other police agency that I’m aware of, nor any provincial or state police guidelines to my knowledge, have any such prohibition on the pursuit of stolen cars.
You didn’t look at them until I pointed out that you hadn’t. And I never claimed that they were vastly different than anywhere else. I just think that they’re a sensible balance between the dangers of police pursuits and the goal of keeping dangerous offenders off the streets.
Finally, I already pointed out the most of the perps that were being chased were suspected of armed robberies, carjackings, and even murders. There are very few cases of “minor” offenses resulting in police pursuits, depending on one’s definition of “minor”.
Here’s yet another chase video in which the perp was guilty of none of those things, which might indeed be considered a pursuit for a relatively “minor” stuff, mostly involving traffic-related offenses. The question you need to ask yourself is whether or not this individual’s track record constituted a serious threat to public safety – a threat serious enough to have outweighed the risks of a pursuit. In my view, the answer is yes. Is this a guy you’d want on the roads in your community? Check out this charmer – and remember, this guy is practically a saint compared to most of the others like armed robbers and murderers that were apprehended in police pursuits, some ending in shootouts:
From watching TV, I would say that the ty[ical chase here starts with a cop spotting a minor traffic violation (broken light, no seat belt, illegal turn etc) and deciding to stop the car. Instead of stopping, the miscreant tries to get away and a pursuit starts.
The cop immediately radios in to get authorisation and give a commentary on location, speed and conditions. In many cases, the pursuit may be called off. The question always is - why didn’t they stop? When they are caught, it’s usually because they are over the limit on drugs or alcohol or have something (drugs, weapons) in the car they shouldn’t have, or are unlicensed/uninsured and/or driving a stolen car.
Taking insane risks to apprehend a driver with a few wraps of cannabis is clearly wrong, but all the pursuing cops know for sure is that the driver is prepared to risk their own and other peoples lives to avoid being stopped.
With apologies to those who may find this sort of thing boring or irrelevant, I’m going to digress just a bit from the original topic of police chases to the thing that is often their precursor, the ubiquitous and sometimes infamous police traffic stop. This is where you find even more real human drama, sometimes almost funny, sometimes disturbingly serious. I continue to be fascinated by the cinematic quality of these things. Maybe this whole thread should have been in CS.
I present just two examples for your perusal.
The first is what I call Lunatic Granny with Undertones of Psychosis.
The second is just bizarre. An off-duty cop is pulled over for suspected DUI. Turns out, the guy is so plastered he can barely talk coherently. He identifies himself as a cop and his initial attitude vacillates between belligerence and inane giggling. He refuses to take the field sobriety test. When the consequences are fully explained to him, he relents and, with the same belligerence, demands to take it, obviously unaware of how drunk he is.
To me the video is just visually and artistically fascinating – albeit unintentionally – because the way it plays out in the dark night, with the figures often just dimly illuminated by the flashing police strobes or sometimes headlights or flashlights, creates an atmosphere of an almost avant-garde film. And then watch what happens when the suspect actually attempts the sobriety test.
To those who may say I lack empathy, you’re wrong. I have great empathy for the vast majority of humanity, and for dogs, cats, and all sentient creatures. When it comes to empathy for drunk drivers (“OVI” – operating a vehicle impaired – I think is the term in this particular jurisdiction rather than “DUI”) my empathy is limited to their getting just consequences, not more, but nothing less. When the drunken perp is a police officer, my empathy is even less.
MC - I think most people would agree with you to a certain extent. But the agreement ends with your belief in an absolute prohibition on pursuits. If a guy who is wanted for murdering his entire family flees from the police at speeds exceeding the limit, what do you propose be done?
When people do flee at high rates and are caught (then or at some later time), the punishment should be severe. Mandatory jail time, even if no one is injured. More time if there are injuries.
I was with you up to this point. Most of this guy’s “offense” is related to the actual chase itself. The cops are just piling on charges to make him seem like a bad dude.
I mean “fleeing and eluding” is the chase
“Aggravated assault on a law enforcement office” is when he hit the cop car
“driving while license suspended/revoked” in and of itself in nothing,
“reckless driving” again, because of the chase (and maybe the reason for the initial stop)
“violation of probation” that doesn’t affect your driving
and finally “DUI”. OK that one I don’t want on the road.
The rest is just charge padding. You’ll note he’s not charged with DUI itself, so he probably wasn’t under the influence in the chase.
Maybe we should let wolfpup have their thread back. I’ve said my piece. I’ll just close by saying: not chasing is not the same as letting go.
Where in this thread have you provided evidence to support this claim?
I cited a Washington Post article, which you dismissed as “cherry-picking,” but as far as I can tell you haven’t cited any evidence to the contrary.
What I was saying there – note the tense of “perps who were being chased” – was in reference to my anecdotal observation that virtually all of the pursuit videos I’ve come across involved perps fleeing from serious crimes. I don’t claim that these 20 or 30 anecdotal observations are a challenge to what was presumably a statistically valid formal study; that is, however, what I observed and what I was referring to.
As for actual evidence to support my claim, I will first note that it clearly varies by state and province due to different laws governing police pursuits, and also varies by the policies of different police departments. That said, my cite that there are very few cases of genuinely minor offenses resulting in police pursuits is Ontario Reg. 266/10, Subject Apprehension Pursuits, which I cited previously, and which explicitly prohibits non-criminal pursuits. Our friend @mikecurtis, who has been arguing the opposite side of the issue, assures us that the Ontario regulations are quite typical.
Again, you are misunderstanding. The cherry-picking part was that they focused only on pursuits that were initiated due to violent offenses. I maintain that there are a large number of serious crimes that are not necessarily “violent”, but are red flags for a danger to the community and characterize individuals with a reckless disregard for societal norms and public safety who might easily become violent.
Even more(or less) polarizing might be the subset of chase videos that are specially focused on chasing motorcycles. Most of these are filmed by the motorcyclists themselves. A lot of these guys ride with no plates/obscured plates, at high speed, and are often doing wheelies and other reckless dickhead stuff sometimes in large groups. They plan to run if lit up.
Keeping in mind most of these stops are initiated for traffic related fuckery and that they’re a lot less dangerous when there’s not a 3000 lb car speeding right behind them and sometimes trying to run them off the road.
I don’t advocate police chasing motorcycles and ATVs etc. but what is the answer to these roving packs of assholes? Philadelphia is having a huge problem with them and the cops may not chase. The riders know it and it just emboldens them. Even the neighbors (not necessarily friends) of the riders have had enough. Take pictures and seize on sight, if found parked? Lots of paperwork (seizure warrants) would be involved, assuming that would even be legal.
A few will sort themselves out by fucking up themselves or their bikes. Social media maybe if they like to post video.
Next best bet would be, no joke, rigorous parking enforcement. These are probably the same guys that park on the sidewalk.
Some videos that have nothing to do with police chases but follow along on the general theme …
Here we have a “sovereign citizen” type driver refusing to give police any identification, despite having an apparently illegal license plate. He also claimed that he wasn’t “driving”; according to his constitutionalist interpretation, he was “traveling”.
tl/dr version: Eventually, after fruitless negotiations, car windows get busted out of both sides, sovereign citizen is pulled out by a human police officer with a four-pawed K9 police officer chomping on his arm.on the other side. The sovereign citizen apparently didn’t like it, especially the encounter with the Very Good Boy canine police officer.
Here’s another one featuring a Very Good Boy. Young police canine tracks down prison escapee in almost no time!
Couldn’t it just be that California is the most populated state so such things are more likely to happen?
Except for certain guidelines Wisconsin leaves it up to each individual agency to decide policy on it. By law each agency has to have a written policy on it. My department went from having a full on pursuit policy to an absolutely no pursuit policy, to it’s current pursuit policy of pursuing only under certain circumstances. Doesn’t matter to me. I do not see the percentage. I cut off as soon as I realize their not stopping and their going well above the limit.
Now, during my first career as a Sheriffs Deputy it was much different. We chased everything. And we rammed cars right off the freeway. Not just Pit maneuver, but actual ramming from behind, T-bone, you name it. Every squad had a reinforced push bar and we used them. When I was young, dumb, and full of cum I thought it was a dream job. Other agencies and agencies from different counties would try to get a fleeing car into Milwaukee County freeway because they knew we didn’t fuck around with such shit.