[QUOTE=simster]
tell me how you can differentiate between the two *before * the unsub(s) are apprehended?
you can’t.
[/quote]
Well, if the radio call says that the suspects from a bank robbery (still very common) are fleeing in a red Camry, and a red Camry goes shooting by the LEO and goes on to evade stopping, it is a pretty reasonable assumption that the occupants are the criminals.
On the other hand, if the LEO calls in a plate and it turns out to be stolen, but they know nothing else of the vehicle occupants, then it may not be wisest to chase.
Still, I’ll acknowledge that there are lots of situations where the LEOs have no such information readily available.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
I agree. But not even that. I don’t want a speeding ticket, littering, a seat belt ticket, or a tail light out ticket. Just floor it, watch the cop back off, go home and if questioned, complain about how the damned neighbor kids were driving your car recklessly last night. You are such a nice guy that you give the whole neighborhood permission to use your car and leave the keys on top of the left front tire. Promise to give them a stern lecture.
[/QUOTE]
So then the police impound your car. That’s easily solved.
Which has many legal issues. If they can prove it’s you anyway. And if they just happen to have the manpower to walk around doing it.
One MAJOR issue which has been ignored is that peope don’t just casually slow down once they get away from the cops. Drunks, particualrly, just keep going as fast as they can. This rather creates an even more dangerous situation.
From a cop I’ve met and who talked about it in his writings, people sometimes have this image that the cops jest love themselves a gol’durn real live car chase. He said it was the scariest thing he ever had to do, and he had to do it several times (I don’t believe he ever drew his gun in the line of duty). He did NOT liek it, and neither did anyone on the force, becasue you were white-knuckled praying you lived through the experience. So it was hardly somethig they wanted to do.
Nonetheless, he felt that generally, it was better to chase than not to. Once someone sped away, they kept going for who knows how long. About the only thing warning everyone is the police lights and sirens.
A big part of the problem is the other drivers on the road who do NOT get out of the way for the sirens and flashing lights. I am mildly addicted to watching “police reality” shows and regular scratch my head at the fact that you almost never see anyone even clear a lane, much less pull over and stop as is required by law in most, if not all, jurisdictions, even with multiple cop cars coming up behind them.
[QUOTE=Sunrazor]
I’d want to see statistics on how many innocents have been killed as a direct result of police chases vs. the number of “rabbits” who have been caught without incident. Outlawing police chases means one has only to refuse to be pulled over by the police to avoid being detained.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=D_Odds]
<snip>On the other hand, if the LEO calls in a plate and it turns out to be stolen, but they know nothing else of the vehicle occupants, then it may not be wisest to chase.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
I think the implication was that the car might have been sold.
[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t make sense to me. If somebody buys a stolen car, how do the register it? If they just haven’t made the trip to the DMV yet, but they’re an upstanding citizen, and a cop flips his lights at them, why would they run?
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
I still think there is a use for it, but we should use it with discression. We should be looking for technological answers to replace it. Perhaps a EMP device to disable the car, or a tracking devise that can be somehow attached to the car, along with areal methods where the ground based patrol can hand off the pursuit to a helicopter or even a unmanned craft.
[/QUOTE]
Yup. Just scale down this and there will be no more high speed chases. Or any chases. It’s hard to drive with molten engine compartment.
[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
People who steal cars aren’t criminals? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
You missed the point completely. If all you know about the car is that it is listed as stolen, perhaps it is not best to engage in a high risk activity to recover it. However, if you know the vehicle or occupants were recently engaged in violent activities, the risk may be judged worth the apprehension of the felons.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
Okay, but to take it to the next step. If a drunk driver is dangerous, then how much more dangerous is he if a cop follows him in high speed pursuit?
I mean, he’s dangerous at regular speeds, blindly trying to limp home, but push him to 100mph?
If you read my last post, I’m playing devil’s advocate, but there are some good points to the “no chase” thing..
[/QUOTE]
Again, this is why departmental policies should leave some discretion to the police officer and any higher ups he is communicating with on the radio. There should be policies in place designed by professionals. An absolute “no chase” prohibition does not make sense.
A seriously drunk person won’t be much of a danger to anyone if he’s driving at 100 mph, it doesn’t take long for someone who is seriously impaired to lose control of their vehicle and wreck at those speeds.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
A seriously drunk person won’t be much of a danger to anyone if he’s driving at 100 mph, it doesn’t take long for someone who is seriously impaired to lose control of their vehicle and wreck at those speeds.
[/QUOTE]
Ummm, I’m not saying your argument in its entirety is wrong ( I don’t want to get into this), but Martin Hyde, perhaps you should read what you just wrote. :eek: It ah, doesn’t exactly add to your argument. In fact, it kinda kneecaps it.
To ban them all would mean you couldn’t chase a paedophile with a stolen kiddie in the back seat, or a muderer. I say discretion should be used, and approval from a supervisor must given before you chase. You definitely don’t want a pedestrian getting hit in a pursuit of someone who fled the gas station without paying though.