[Drjones]

What is your take on them?

Sure I've seen those dumb (but incredibly addicting! :D ) "Worlds wildest police chases" and crap like that, but I also saw an informative clip on A&E about police chases.

In that A&E clip, they showed a MI cop pursuing a stolen cadillac. The pursuit went onto the freeway, and the driver hit another vehicle, causing it to FLIP.

IMO, police pursuits are too dangerous, and can result in far too much property damage and casualties.

Does anyone have statistics on this matter?

I think the police should have far LESS leeway in initiating pursuits than they currently do. A stolen car is NOT worth an innocent bystanders' life.

Opinions?

Drjones

[MitchSchaft]

I think each chase should be weight for it's benefeits to determine if a chase should continue. I guess it would depend on why they're being chased and the amount of traffic around.
Then again, you never really know why someone is running until after you have caught them. Maybe they just killed someone's sister for no reason. Or maybe it's something as simple as driving without a license.

[agricola]

---

[Hkmp5sd]

I think the police must chase any vehicle that runs for the simple reason that if they are severely limited or outright banned, more people will run.

If the public could be taught that beyond popular belief, they cannot outrun radio waves, perhaps some of these guys would simply stop. Also increase the penalty for running. If felony evading resulted in 5 years in prison, maybe the guy would consider the DUI conviction or 30 days for parking fines wouldn't be all that bad.

That said, it must be a case-by-case decision on whether to continue a pursuit or stop because it becomes too dangerous for the cops or civilians.

[Steve in PA]

If its your car........you'll be yelling and screaming how we're not doing enought to get it back.

Blame the airhead driving the car that won't pull over.

If I light you up for speeding or running a red light/stop sign and you take off.........the first thing I think of is........gee, wonder why he did that??? Could it be he's wanted for something????

So just let anyone who wants to run from the police go, right??

Then what???

And don't say you'll catch them later........cause by the time you catch up with the car at the owners home he'll say....."I don't know who was driving it.......I must have left the keys in the car officer".

[Beren]

This brings back memories of my first speeding ticket. There I was on 119 South in Indiana County, PA, cruising to Greensburg to take a college exam. The time: 6am. Still dark mostly dark outside, and my mind is filled with the horror that is flowchart symbols for systems logic. A car moving at what I feel is too slow a pace.

I signal, slide into the left lane, and zip on past the car.

Less than a minute later, said car lights up and pulls me over. It's a /marked/ state police vehicle, complete with lights on top. No stealth vehicle, no unmarked car.

Trooper: "Didn't you see me when you passed me back there?"

Me, sheepish, feeling quite the stupid a$$: "No ma'am."

What I wanted to say: "Had I seen you I would'nt have passed you!"

It never even crossed my mind to run. Why would I?

I can't remember if she gave me a fine or not. I did receive a notice to present my insurance and registration at the barracks, as I had forgotten to put the new insurance card in the car.

[Preacherman]

I don't think anyone can deny that serious criminals should be stopped, period. However, there have been far too many cases of people being chased for something completely minor (e.g. tail-light out, tag expired, etc.). I agree that these people are idiots to run for something so minor, but given the risks to others, I think police are silly to chase them for anything other than an arrestable felony. Why not simply note the vehicle's number and description, let them go, and arrange to confiscate the vehicle at an appropriate time? Let that - confiscation - be the penalty for running from police.

(Of course, if there is probable cause to suspect something serious, by all means chase 'em down.)

[Joe Demko]

A friend of mine, who later became Chief of Police in his town, chased two teenagers once. Their offense was squealing their tires at an intersection. When he hit his lights, they took off. Just before the edge of the city limits, where by department policy he would have broken pursuit, they ran their car up a utility pole guy wire at high speed. They were both killed. What can we say based on the incident?
1. They shouldn't have run.
2. When the pursuit was clearly dangerous, he should have broken it off. The "crime" in question was hardly a felony.

They were just stupid kids in daddy's car. They didn't deserve death for their offense. Many of us have done things just as stupid and our survival (as was their death) had more to do with luck than anything else. The officer in question feels horrible about the incident to this day. I imagine it was a factor in his recent decision to leave LE altogether. If he had it to do over again, he'd just have let them go.

[Smurfslayer]

A few years ago, a 17 year old Volunteer firefighter from Bryan's Road, MD was murdered by charles county MD deputy Jody Powell. Powell was travelling at a speed estimated at 105 - 115 mph in a 40 mph zone. As she approached the (4 eyewitness accounts) red light, she did not slow, and struck the firefighter's nissan broad side, flipping it several times. The fire dept. was called to the scene - the Bryan's Road Fire dept. The victim was killed on impact. The MD state police arrived, took statements and that was that. ~2 or 3 years passed after the family filed suit against the Charles Co. sheriff's dept. The venue was changed to Prince Georges county, and, a verdict handed down that found the county liable for $100k or $200k (the maximum allowed by law, I don't remember which). The judge wrote that it was the most eggegious example of abused authortiy, lying to cover up a crime, perjury and police misconduct he'd ever seen in over 20 years. Eye witness accounts indicated that the officer did NOT use her lights & siren AND did not yield at the red light, and the MD state police ignored the eyewitness accounts at the scene and during the investigation. Deputy Powell was never charged. And what was so all fired important ?

A traffic stop less than 2 miles ahead. Officer had called for someone to haul in a DUI. Deputy powell, dispatch records had shown, was ordered to not continue to the scene twice by dispatchers.

I lived in the area at the time, and I did not know personally any of the parties involved. Would you want your neighbor, younger sister or daughter killed in this fashion ?

[Drjones]

Our Father, Papa Smurf, and Golgo all show EXACTLY why I feel the way I feel on this issue.

That dep. Powell should be hung. :cuss: :cuss:

[Smurfslayer]

Hanged. Hung is what you did to your pants, hanged is what happens to people (just picking nits). Interestingly, and topically, USA Today has an article on this very subject -

Police pressured to call off chase
By Valerie Alvord Special for USA TODAY

Linda and Larry McCoy run their grass-roots crusade with a single telephone in the corner of an office in Jackson, Miss. They check their messages each day, bracing for new stories about innocent bystanders killed during police chases of fleeing drivers.

More than 3,000 people died in crashes during police pursuits in the past decade, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says. In 2001, 365 people died, including 140 who weren't in a police car or a vehicle being chased. Robin McCoy, 18, an honor student at Jackson State University, was one of them.

Her parents have become activists, urging politicians to finance more training for police and to adopt laws that restrict the circumstances under which police can launch high-speed chases.

"We are not anti-police," says Larry McCoy, 50, who operates a nursing agency in Jackson and in his spare time promotes Victims of Police Pursuit, the organization he and his wife founded. "We are not asking that they ban all police chases. What we're asking, among other things, is that police officers receive adequate training."

The McCoys are not alone. Across the nation, support is building among civil libertarians, law enforcement experts and many police officers to eliminate most chases — those that start when motorists flee over minor traffic infractions. More than half of all police chases are triggered by such incidents, federal statistics show, and 40% of chases result in crashes.

The casualties among innocent people put cities and their police departments at risk of liability lawsuits. Cities in New Mexico, Oregon and Nevada have settled such lawsuits out of court for $1 million or more because "the sympathies of juries are with the victim," says David Lesh, an Oregon attorney and law enforcement consultant.

Some states, including California, have laws shielding police from such liability. Lesh says that could change in the aftermath of incidents such as two recent cases in Los Angeles. A 4-year-old girl was killed during a chase in June. And a baby boy lost an arm during a pursuit last month when his parents' SUV was broadsided by a fleeing car.

"It doesn't take too many of those tragic stories to make people feel that immunity laws are just too one-sided," Lesh says.

Activity to scale back police chases is moving on several fronts:

In California, Mississippi, New Jersey and Texas, victims' families have set up groups to lobby for changes in state and federal laws.
Police and sheriff's departments in communities including Baltimore; Austin; Salt Lake City; Peachtree City, Ga.; North Miami Beach; and Orange County, Calif., are adopting policies that ban or curtail chases and make greater use of techniques to identify and stop motorists without chasing them.
In Las Vegas, the nation's fastest-growing major city, Bill Young will consider tougher rules when he becomes head of the Metropolitan Police Department today.
The most dramatic change could come in Los Angeles, where aerial coverage of police chases is often beamed nationwide by cable TV networks. The city's police commission, at the urging of new Chief William Bratton, is expected to consider strict rules on chases Tuesday.
"He's looking for a way to strike a balance, where we don't put people at risk by police pursuits and we also don't put them at risk by allowing dangerous criminals to get away," Deputy Police Chief George Gascon says.

The department's research showed that Los Angeles has the highest number of chases among 17 cities surveyed. In 2001, Los Angeles had 781 chases, 283 collisions, 139 collisions involving injuries and six deaths.

In neighboring Orange County, which has a more restrictive pursuit policy and a population of 2.8 million, about 1 million fewer than Los Angeles, there were eight pursuits, one collision and no injuries.

Research "debunks the myth" that most suspects chased by police are serious criminals, says Geoffrey Alpert, a professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina. "Most are deadbeats making stupid decisions to avoid being caught for not having a license or some offense that would be very minor compared to what happens when they initiate a pursuit."

Some experts say reining in police who are accustomed to giving chase any time a driver flees can be difficult.

"I was a young policeman in Savannah, Ga., where we chased everything we saw. But we have to stop that," says Jim Murray, police chief in Peachtree City, a suburb of Atlanta. The city has restrictive chase policies, but a pursuit last year that began in an adjacent community sped through Peachtree City and ended in a collision that killed an innocent motorist, Norman Charles Vicha, 41.

Vicha's mother, Alice, often pores over police videotapes of the chase, pointing out the things that went wrong. "If (police) had known the right maneuvers, they could have stopped it," she says.

Murray has also seen the tapes. "The pursuit went through a local shopping center at 60 miles per hour with little kids and shoppers diving out of the way," he says. "At some point, common sense has to take over."

Murray's letters calling on the governor of Georgia and President Bush to do something about deadly chases netted him international publicity, a few nasty letters from colleagues and appreciative phone calls from victims and victims' relatives.

Murray says more police are using technology, not chases, to stop fleeing cars. Strips of nails laid across highways flatten tires. Helicopters safely track vehicles from the air. And devices are being developed to disable cars electronically.

Murray is a hero to Candy Priano of Chico, Calif. Her daughter Kristie, 15, a high school track and basketball star, honor student and animal-rescue volunteer, was killed last year when a teenager being pursued by police smashed into the family's car. Priano is lobbying for a law that would create one chase policy for all police jurisdictions in California.

Another friend of the movement is Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., whose mother was killed when a suspect under pursuit slammed into her car in 1986. He says police in his mother's hometown of Bismarck, N.D., were chasing a pickup truck driver who refused to stop after fishtailing on snowy streets.

"I can understand that police would pursue if there were a bank robbery and guns were blazing," Dorgan says. "But this was just absurd."

Dorgan says he pushes for legislation at every opportunity, and won $1 million a year for training police for pursuits.

Bill Berger, past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, says the organization recommends chasing only as a last resort. He predicts that police departments across the country eventually will adopt restrictive policies because of the danger to bystanders and the fear of lawsuits.

A restrictive policy might have saved the lives of Rodney and Wendy Stokes of Apopka, Fla. The newlyweds, 24 and 21 respectively, were killed in South Carolina in 1996 during a chase after a driver fled a traffic check. "Two innocent people," says Roger Stokes, Rodney's father. "It didn't have to happen."

[PATH]

I am of the opinion that you can outrun an RMP but you can't outrun Motorola. I think that car chases for anything but the most dangerous felons or life threatening probability, should be stopped.

What you gain is far outstripped by what you can lose.

[igor]

Shouldn't one consider a 1,5 ton vehicle a huge projectile compared to a 115 grain bullet? Those aren't just hurled at the general direction of innocent bystanders either. Any common sense and the most basic cost-benefit analysis would prevent most of these tragedies.

[CMichael]

If bad guys know that police are restricting from pursuing it will give them incentive to run away.

[rock jock]

So, you want to just let thieves run? What kind of message does that send? Talk about encouraging criminal behavior. Wait five years and after car-jackings and other property crimes increase 300% there would be a huge public outcry demanding action. Can't have it both ways. Personally, I think the penalty ought to be very stiff, on the order of five to ten years.

[Atticus]

Isn't the thinking bassackwards on this? How can the police NOT pursue a fleeing driver? What about personal responsibiity? Shouldn't the people doing the fleeing bear the responsibility for whatever happens, and shouldn't they face MUCH tougher penalties for doing so? Most of these folks are running because they are afraid of getting into MINOR trouble (expired licsense, DUI,curfew, etc.) Would they flee if they knew they would face serious jail time for fleeing?

Obviously there are situations where high speed pursuits should be called off- and other stratagies should be developed as well.

Golgo-13: Those kids killed themselves... and put others in danger in the process. I feel bad for the cop. Cops aren't psychic...how do they know if a person is fleeing from a traffic ticket, or if they have someone tied up in the trunk. What if he'd found out later that a kid was missing and the fleeing car matched a description of the abductor's car?

[JPM70535]

The very idea that the Police should not chase violators who at the inception of the chase are only suspected of a minor traffic infraction is insane.

The LEO has no way to tell why the fleeing suspect is doing so. Possibly he has committed a violent felony such as Armed Robbery, or he may have kiddnapped or murdered some innocent party and is fleeing the scene in their vehicle. (stolen)

I can guarantee that if the LEO attempted to stop the fleeing suspect, broke off the chase when the suspect refused to stop,and the Press later learned that after having eluded the LEO the suspect committed another violent crime, they(the Press) would be demanding the LEOs head on a platter.

The LEO has to use his best judgement in chasing a violator, and has to be responsible for his own actions during the chase. If the LEO crashes his vehicle and causes injury or death to an innocent party, he should be held accountable. However, when the violator causes the injury to another, the responsibility should rest squqrely on his shoulders. Civil liability should be assigned solely to the fleeing suspect, not the pursueing agency

There just is no way that Chases should be abandoned , there is too much to lose.

[mrat]

Abandoning chases all together due to the danger of death or injury is a knee jerk reaction akin to banning firearms due to the danger of death and injury. A balanced approach must be reached on this issue. Also the penalty for running from the police, regardless if in a vehicle or on foot, must be made extremely severe. The absolute refusal of our judicial system to impose harsh penalties on those who evade the police has caused the problem we see today. Blaming the police for the mayhem caused by these idiots who evade is like blaming the firearm that a criminal uses. The criminal is responsible for ALL of the outcomes of his actions.

[Drjones]

mrat: I agree. However, if the cop didn't chase the bad guy in the first place, the chances are much greater he wouldn't have gone on to plow into mr. and mrs. innocent a few blocks down.

Funny, just tonight on my local news I heard a story how L.A. is seeking to restrict police chases.

I of course agree that the criminal is fully responsible, and if anyone is killed during his pursuit, he should be charged with murder, but that still won't bring back the dead.

I just think police pursuits should be restricted a bit more than now.

*Question* If, during pursuit of a criminal, an innocent is killed, does the fleeing criminal get extra sentencing? He darn well should!!! :fire:

[dave]

In my jurisdiction, 79% of all pursuits have been found to be of stolen autos. How does this figure into the "get the tag number and arrest them at a later date" reasoning? If the car is stolen you can be pretty sure the owner isn't driving.

Of that 79%, over 89% involved a felony commited before the pursuit began. Of those, 68% were violent crimes involving harm or injury to another. Of the original 79% found to be stolen, 70% were found to contain weapons and/or drugs. 87% of all the stolen auto drivers arrested had prior felony records. 74% of those had been arrested for two or more violent crimes.


IMO, those who wish the police to stop pursuing criminals who run, are just like the anti folks. They live in the world as they wish it to be rather than the world as it is. Most cops would like nothing better than to not chase criminals, some of those on the dead and injured stats are police officers. I know of no officer who wants his family told he was killed trying to catch a criminal or who wants to go home, knowing he was involved in an incident that took the life of an innocent person. For one to think otherwise speaks of a more deeply held hatred of police officers than one admits.

Pursuits are just one of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" jobs officers do. Those who have suffered a personal harm or those who suffer a deeply held dislike for police officers are more likely to disagree with pursuits. They are more likely to hold officers and their depts responsible. That's understandable. Sometimes it's out of anger and grief, and sometimes it's out of greed. Yes, a few are simply looking for a "deep pocket" (nasty, but it happens).

If an officer is responsible, thru willful disregard of policy or public safety, for harm to innocent persons, he should be held accountable. To me, that's a no brainer. But, if someone is harmed during a pursuit, thru no action of the officer's, then the "blame" rests squarely on the shoulders of the criminal. Sadly, some laywers and next of kin look at the suspect and see only zeros and look at a dept and see $$$. Certainly not all do this, but it happens often enough to dirty the entire dialogue.

Do some police officers make mistakes during pursuits? Again, sadly the answer is yes. If you want officers who never make mistakes, you had better start looking on another world. And again, when they do they must be held accountable. The only problem with that, is that those harmed or those who dislike officers will only see it one way, ever. If the officer is found not responsible for the events, then someone must be "covering up" something. Because, in their mind, the officer is at fault and nothing will ever change that, ever. While I don't let such a mindset affect me, I know it's there. You do too.

If you need someone to "blame" for these horrorible events, blame the criminal. He made to choice to run, he made the choice that his "personal freedom" was worth more than another's life, he decided that the police are just "persons in authority" to be scorned and distrusted (wonder where he heard that?), he decided to place those around him in harms way so he wouldn't have to "go back" to jail, he decided his few minutes of "fun" was worth more than your life. **(I remember seeing on COPS one time, a guy being chased by police was in a truck headed toward town, the chase left the truck with no tires, just rims. As the police car came up to stop him before he got to the middle of the city, he was seen shooting heroin in his arm - your life wasn't worth as much to him as was getting that one last "high" before going to jail)** Yet, some will still blame the officer for trying to stop him.

If criminals know that all they have to do, to get away, is make it to the city limits or drive fast enough to be a danger to everyone, what do you think they will do? Stop and wait for us to arrest them or drive like a wild man, hoping we'll call off the chase? You don't think his desire to get away would cause him to hurt someone in the process, do you? Even if no one was chasing him? He still has to make it to the city limits or get out of sight. You don't think he would drive just a wee bit on the dangerous side to do that, do you?

Do some of you dislike/hate anyone, whom you believe is in a position of "authority" over you, so much that you feel it "right" to rid yourself and the world of them, even at the cost of innocent lives? That's where the dislike/hate comes from, isn't it? You simply hate the thought that society has placed someone in a position of "authority" over you, that someone may be able at times, to tell you what to do. You, a "free man", and someone can tell you what to do! Do you hate that feeling so much, you would have someone else pay with their life, just to make it be gone?

[Cal4D4]

They just pulled the plug on L.A. chases for minor stuff. Everybody has a good point on the reasons for and against, but when non involved citizens get clobbered by the LEOs as well as fleeing bad guys it gets hard to justify.

[Joe Demko]

...Do some of you dislike/hate anyone, whom you believe is in a position of "authority" over you, so much that you feel it "right" to rid yourself and the world of them, even at the cost of innocent lives? That's where the dislike/hate comes from, isn't it? You simply hate the thought that society has placed someone in a position of "authority" over you, that someone may be able at times, to tell you what to do. You, a "free man", and someone can tell you what to do! Do you hate that feeling so much, you would have someone else pay with their life, just to make it be gone?

Unbunch your knickers. Just as shootings by police are not always justifiable, neither are chases. I was raised in a police family and I've done a little of it myself, so your resentment of authority hypothesis doesn't wash. Police are authority figures, but with their greater authority they also MUST carry greater responsibilty.

[Cal4D4]

To flesh out the L.A. info a bit. Per The Daily Breeze 1-08-03...

This is only LAPD, surrounding cities are not included. They have their own pursuits all the time.

782 pursuits in 2002, twice that of Phoenix and Dallas, 6x Atlanta
37% of pursuits from 1999 - 2001 resulting in collisions, 9 deaths, 479 injuries
58% of the pursuits in 2001 were prompted by minor traffic infractions

There are 100,000 annual arrests in L.A., chases are a very small fraction.

Officers get hurt in these also, sometimes from running into each other. We are the car chase capital. They are going to rely more on the helicopters for the next year. In the L.A. basin the LAPD, Sheriff's and several of the cities have helicopter support. This is only for chases prompted by minor traffic offenses. If officer has reasonable suspicion misdemeanor or felony was committed or about to be committed the chase is permitted.

[Fed168]

There are times when you gotta get the bad guy. Now that is not a blanket statement for chasing, you gotta weigh the odds of it.
When the bad guys know you can't chase, they will run. I back this up by personal experience.
Some agencies have a no chase or very restricted policy. In general I think we need more training on chasing.

[mrat]

mrat: I agree. However, if the cop didn't chase the bad guy in the first place, the chances are much greater he wouldn't have gone on to plow into mr. and mrs. innocent a few blocks down.

Actually if the criminal did not run in the first place the cops would have no one to chase.

I understand what you are saying but this statement still takes some of the blame away from the criminal and places it on someone else.

[Fed168]

There are times when we don't chase and the badguy plows into someone. The only thing on his mind is not going to jail.

[Sarge]

get yourself a reserve commission & jump right in there with both feet; maybe if you can play politics and kiss hiney well enough you'll climb to the top fast enough to save us all before we retire. I've been waiting for somebody to 'fix' my profession for a long time now. If I'd only known there was so much undiscovered administrative talent over here I'd have sent a recruiter before now. Or, I guess you could just send us your phone numbers and a list of financial assests so we could ask

a) your legal opinion in every situation, and

b) then pass that information along to anyone present who might have an inkling to sue at some later date & time, based on your brilliant decision...

:neener:

There Oleg, aren't you proud of me? I didn't even cuss once despite the overwhelming urge to do so.

[cratz2]

Well, in general, I'm sure most police officers are capable of handling most chases. On the other hand, I can think of several chases wherein death was the result and, liberal as it may sound, I think the situations were a little extreme. One was a female officers in or outside of Dallas TX. Persuing a suspect, she lost control of her vehicle and was killed. They estimate she was traveling over 100 MPH and she was killed pretty much immediately on impact. The chase was not worth that result. Regardless of what the suspect was suspected of.

The other was in Greenwood IN. where a couple kids stole something from Meijers and either a patron or rent-a-cop security guard chased them out of the store then a vehicle persuit ensued. Kid ended up losing control and one of them died. This is the definition of negligence in quasi law enforcement.

The worst one I know of was at the interestction of 10th and Arlington in Indianapolis, IN in about 1993. A police officer with no sirens, lights or headlights was 'in persuit' (though that was a lie as well, I have my sources) ran through the interesection and hit a car, flipped it over and killed the valedictorian of a local Catholic school. A waste. That a worthless scumbag issued a badge was allowed to take what probably would have been a very productive life.

To continue a persuit, the officer needs to be aware of the possible outcome, good or bad. If the officer is chasing someone for a brakelight being out and endeds up killing someone in the persuit, then it is partially the officers responsibility. Regardless of a board ruling. I certainly don't believe that chases should be stopped as I am sure that fleeing vehicles originally being persued for minor stuff, turns out to have other major violations. But officers need to be aware of the possible outcomes and be held responsible for said outcomes. If you decide to run through an intersection with no emergency lights on and no heatlights on and you kill a kid, you aren't allowed to drive a police car any more. Period! If you are a rookie cop and you are involved in three wrecks in year, you aren't allowed to drive a police car any more. Police are paid to serve and protect and when they prove themselves incapable of such decisions, they should not be entrusted with that responsibility any more. I doubt many people, LE included, would argue that someone that had missed three targets and killed three bystanders in three seperate incidents should be allowed to carry a gun anymore, but for some reason the difference between a gun and a car is tremendous.

[Art Eatman]

I started driving race cars in 1957; dirt circle-track. I moved on into SCCA racing with open-wheel cars, working up to a 1,250-pound critter with 450 hp--200 mph. Contemporaneously I built street-toys like Corvette-powered Austin Healeys and a 427 Camaro of some 2,850 pounds. I "took off my helmet" in 1978.

With that in mind, lemme say that the average American can't drive for sour apples at 70 or 80, much less above 100. And, from what I've seen, the average cop-car doesn't have the suspension or tires to "make it through the corners". I rather doubt the skill level, as well.

My primary gripe with a lot of chases has to do with two things: First is the lack of money for proper equipment and training for the police as to high-speed events--blame City Hall. The other, more-gray-area, has to do with judgement about when to not-chase and really is more of a function of location and traffic density--that's an individual thing.

I don't pretend to have any absolute answer to the legal/moral question: Which is worse, the escape of an armed robber, or dead innocents?

Art

[Chris Rhines]

Jeez, Art, I was just about to say...

Just like the vast majority of police officers do not get enough training with their firearms, few police officers are competent to drive in the manner required for a 100mph+ pursuit. I'd be willing to give the cops a bit more leeway about initating and maintaining pursuits if they were better trained.

- Chris

[444]

I definitely believe that restrictions should be in place for any "code 3" response. Driving outside of the normal traffic laws is extremly dangerous and should be done only under the most dire of circumstances. For law enforcement this boils down to the old adage that two wrongs don't make a right. Someone has commited a crime. Killing or seriously injuring someone else in order to catch the person isn't justified. Let alone killing or injuring themselves which will cost the taxpayers big bucks not to mention the damage to equipment, lost man hours etc.

I have spent 20 years driving emergency vehicles not as a cop but has a paramedic and for the last 11 years as a firefighter/paramedic. I have driven ambulances, engines, and ladder trucks "code 3". I have driven on an emergency response as late as 0330 this morning. I have also recieved fairly extensive training including learning all about reaction time, perception distance, total stopping distance................. I have driven on skid pads etc. I KNOW that driving Code 3 is a very dangerous proceedure. People don't pay attention, people don't follow traffic laws in regard to their reaction to emergency vehicles, people panic, people don't hear or see you, people walk out in the street, kids that don't know any better run out in the street.................... It is NOT something to be taken lightly. I know dozens of people who have been involved in accidents driving code 3. Some have resulted in significant injuries. All involved property damage. Some involved civil suits.

Note that in the first paragraph I said "I definitely believe that restrictions should be in place for any "code 3" response.". I include fire departments and ambulances in this statement. I have worked as a paramedic in three different states and in my experience the use of lights and sirens is often irresponsible. Within the last week I was dispatched on an emergency response for a report of a woman crying. I would estimate that my deparment responds on in excess of 200 calls a week for someone who's stated problem is being drunk. We regularly respond code 3 to medical facilites where doctors are in attendance. To me, there is no justification for them putting both my life, and that of the general public at risk unless the situation clearly warrents it.

[DeltaElite]

Who should limit the police on chases? Surely you are not suggesting more laws be made. ;)

It varies from agency to agency. We only pursue for person on person crimes, not property crimes.
The crimes also must be serious, such as rape, murder, shooting, stabbing. Not minor crimes or any traffic violations.

Pursuits are incredibly dangerous to the cops and the general public. Screw the bad guys safety, all he has to do is pull over and take it like a man. :D

[fastbolt]

Fortunately, my plainclothes assignment has VERY strict policies in effect regarding initiating a pursuit in an unmarked car. I haven't had to engage in a "pursuit" as a primary or secondary unit for several years.

Like most agencies we have very strict guidelines and policies which restrict initiating pursuits, including the nature of the "want" ... and continuing pursuits, as affected by weather, traffic & road conditions, etc.

After seeing the result of a lot of "hind sight" applied to pursuits initiated by folks I know, I doubt I'd be engaged in many pursuits if I were to drive a marked car anymore. It's just "not worth it" nowadays, not in the present political and legal climate.

I think the "damned if you do & damned if you don't" description is unfortunately very accurate ... but it's easier to scrupulously follow the guidelines which prevent a great many pursuits, and allow the agency which instituted the liability prevention policies to accept the responsibility for the public's outrage ...

I think the majority of the public will never truly understand how events unfold in "live time" pursuits, as in most other L/E situations ...

I think the public doesn't, and won't, encourage the spending of additional tax dollars to enhance the in-service training required for many high risk L/E activities, such as the high performance driving skills required for vehicle pursuits ... Very perishable skills ... let alone foot the bill for better equipment, such as higher performance vehicles ...

I think that as vehicle pursuits decline, the number of criminals being arrested out of attempted-traffic-stops-which-become-pursuits will decline ... The more traffic stops that occur, the more criminals are identified and arrested. Criminals drive cars to get around more than they take the train or the bus ... I used to make a lot of arrests out of traffic enforcement stops, including arrests for folks with outstanding warrants for crimes of violence.

I think that fewer criminals who have just commited a serious crime, unknown & unreported to L/E at the time of the attempted traffic stop for a minor vehicle infraction, will be apprehended as quickly after the initial criminal act ...

I think the public should get what it wants, and if that's less pursuits, that's the way it is ... :neener: :scrutiny: :banghead:

Of course, will the public deserve what it gets? Who can say? Not me ...:confused: It's not as if the public always has a clear view, let alone a consensus, of what it really wants, anyway ...

[matis]

Perhaps pursuit for very minor infractions should be restricted (as the LEOs here say is already being done). But all others should be chased if they run -- catches lots of criminals, who would otherwise remain at large. And contributes to respect for the law.

However, this may become a moot point. Todays cars are highly computerized. Late model GM cars already have a "black box" that records speed, brake use, etc. for accident investigation.

I've read more than one article reporting debate already ongoing about equipping all cars with electronic devices that would allow cops to stop any car using what amounts to your TV remote!

That would sure eliminate the need for pursuit. But how would we like them apples? Is this just one more step along the road to a police state?

Matis

[Sarge]

when you "light 'em up" what they're gonna do, or why they might be doing it.

I keep seeing folks here make the assertion that we shouldn't chase for minor violations, etc. Evidently some of you don't understand that an awful lot of SERIOUS felons are caught because they commit some minor traffic screw-up, and the copper who sees this has the tenacity to ride the deal out. Tim McVeigh was caught in this very manner. Now I ask you- if he had fled on those minor offenses and the cops had broken off the pursuit, would the world be a better place for it?

There are procedures in place almost everywhere that limit the officers' involvement in, and continuation of, car chases; this is a good thing. But it doesn't give anybody involved the ability to know WHY they're running until they're caught.

At this particular moment in history, car chases are a dangerous, unavoidable reality of law enforcement. Someday there will probably be technology that renders the whole issue a moot point, and I look forward to that day. Like the rest of you I am not particularly enthused about the idea of LE being able to zap your mode of transportation with a phaser, but if it keeps my wife or kids from being killed by an out-of-control pursuit- I believe I can live with that. They can already chase you, run you off the road, even shoot at you in some cases to get you to stop, if you are stupid enough to run in the first place. So what if they cook your ignition circuit instead?

[Art Eatman]

Gee, Sarge. Ain't it nice that us Old Guys who know all about single-point distributors and suchlike ain't gonna be a problem in the first place? :D

Art

"Life begins at 180."

[Chipper]

I think fastbolt's observations are about the clearest here, especially the lat few sentences...I think that fewer criminals who have just commited a serious crime, unknown & unreported to L/E at the time of the attempted traffic stop for a minor vehicle infraction, will be apprehended as quickly after the initial criminal act ...

I think the public should get what it wants, and if that's less pursuits, that's the way it is ...

Of course, will the public deserve what it gets? Who can say? Not me ... It's not as if the public always has a clear view, let alone a consensus, of what it really wants, anyway ...


The public makes irrational demands of police. The public has neither focus or consensus in it's demands. The public uses broad strokes to delineate it's desires and balks continually at the details of what it gets. Then we face the realities of financing the efforts of L/E personnel. Yes, this is more of a challenge than will be fully addressed here.

We, the public, want to be free from being victimized by criminals. We pay dearly in taxes for a police force to do this. When we are victimized, we generally want the perp caught and we want vengeance executed immediately. This is coupled with our anger and disgust at police for failing to provide protection to us. This anger and disgust is compounded when we are pulled over and ticketed for a tail light being burnt out or failing to completely stop the motion of our vehicle at a stop sign or going faster than an arbitrarily predetermined limit at 0500 hours when no one else is on the road.. We ask , and correctly so, why are we being harassed and fined when murderers and rapists an thieves and robbers still roam free? Why are your efforts spent in harassing me when you could be doing what you are paid for?

In our desire for and pursuit of justice we don't want anyone hurt or bothered in this process. We have charged our rulers with providing this to us. We have a complex and nearly unintelligible legal system to work through to make sure that all parties are satisfied. Does anyone here see any contradictions in all of this?

Our desire for justice is good. Our chosen methods for pursuing that justice are deeply flawed. We certainly do not want thugs roaming freely on streets or in our towns. Yet we have managed to effectively double the threat to ourselves in that we have criminals who seek to victimize us and we have police whose exercise of authority works only to protect and to serve the interests of the state. I do not blame the policeman for this condition. I lay all of the balme at the feet of the public for allowing this condition to fester into this current state of madness. We, the people, remain ultimately responsible for our forms of government.

We, the people have failed miseably first and foremost for pushing our most basic responsibility onto the shoulders of others. Our protection from becoming victims is NOT the responsibility of police. That responsibility rests squarely on our shoulders. It is OUR self-defense, yet we whine and cry and piss and moan because the Delphic Oracles of DC have, in a brief moment of lucidity, declared that we simply have no right to protection by the police unless there is a pre-existing relationship and agreement to that effect.

The next difficulty is that those who allegedly represent our interests in the government who gained that job through winning a popularity contest produce legislation which places more authority and demands on the policemen to reign in non-state sanctioned thugs. On top of that they devise many laws and regulations to prevent we, the people from doing what is necessary to thwart the efforts of the non-state sanctioned thugs. Why? Because it gives the police more power and authority and the police are under the direct control of the government. Then we have the allegedly independent judiciary system who have conveniently enslaved themselves to matters of process and procedure and thus thwarting any consideration of justice. Of course this works in the favor of the state and serves to weaken and demoralize we, the people.

So what do we have now? A vicious cycle where we who are made to be victims are further victimized by the very institutions we have set up to the perps who initially victimized us. If we are fortunate to escape being victimized by the non-state sanctioned thugs we remain in constant jeopardy of those thugs who are state-sanctioned.

With today's many car chases, clear evidence of incompetence in handling the tools of the job such as police shooting themselves and other "accidental discharges", the lack of utilizing the tools of the job, like the radio to verify identities and such before engaging in a felony stop, such as in the felony stop of the Smoaks family in Tennessee, there is much to indicate that the time is upon us to clearly rethink the existence and utility of police. Of course, this would be a futile effort without some much needed change in the judicial system. This also would be futile without a serious tweaking of existing legislation and the ability to produce legislation. In essence we will need to reconstruct the whole government in order to effectively gain what we really want.

This will not happen, at least not voluntarily. So you just might as well get used to it and ride along with the ebb and flow of more useless debates and discussions that get nothing done other than to provide a little outlet for your anger and frustration and a forum for you to expound on your opinions and perhaps make your chains feel a little lighter.

Chipper

[Zander]

Goodlettsville defends actions before crash...

"Communication difficulties between Metro and Goodlettsville police along with incompatible radio systems may have contributed to a fatal accident in Madison.

With a Metro police helicopter flying overhead without their knowledge, Goodlettsville officers said they continued a high-speed chase Wednesday that concluded with the accident that killed an oncoming motorist. Hendersonville and Metro police had stopped their pursuit of Marcie Diane Warrick.

A Metro sergeant had backed off in pursuing Warrick, 26, after a department helicopter began monitoring her movement. Police records from Goodlettsville and Metro show that Goodlettsville police continued to chase Warrick for almost five more minutes until she crashed into a vehicle driven by Roy Martin Cobb, who was killed. Goodlettsville Deputy Police Chief Robert Pope said no officers in the chase were aware that the helicopter had joined the pursuit until the crash. Officers were waiting, he said, to let the chopper take over the pursuit." -- Nashville Tennessean, Jan. 25, 2003

[Sarge]

and ain't it amazing what living a few years in this troubled old world does to change your perspective on things? :scrutiny:

[Ed Brunner]

Let's suppose the police are skilled high-speed drivers and are equipped with new Saleen Mustangs or somesuch. The pursuee might be in a 69 Camero with the original shocks and be high on something. In addition to that there are a lot of idiots out there. So it is very dangerous at best and its benefits must be weighed against the incidence of fatal "accidents".

High-speed pursuits are accidents waiting to happen and their benefit is very often questionable. It is a judgment call and I'm glad I don't have to make it.