Police say new laws prevented officers from pursuing suspect that rammed patrol vehicles

PUYALLUP, Wash. — Puyallup Police said they could not legally pursue a suspect vehicle even though it rammed their cars right in front of their eyes.

Two patrol units were damaged as they tried to question the car prowl suspect in his car. Police said the suspect drove off in a hurry ramming their cars along the way. The officers were not hurt because they were not in their cars at the time, which they say is key to what they did.

“The officers were not in the vehicles when the vehicles were rammed, therefor the crime did not rise to the level that would authorize us to pursue that vehicle under the new legislation,” said Capt. Jason Visnaw, Puyallup PD. He was asked, “Does that sound crazy to you?” Visnaw, “It’s the world we live in now. The legislators wrote and enacted this legislation. This is what we are bound by. It’s what we will do.”

State Sen. Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle, 43rd Dist) was asked, “Are they correct?” Pedersen helped pass the legislation and said, “That is correct. We specifically prohibited departments from engaging in hot pursuits unless there had been a violent crime or a sex crime and they had probable cause to believe that the suspect was the person who committed that crime.”

Another of the legislation authors Rep. Jesse Johnson (D-Federal Way, 30th Dist) said, “We put these restrictions on vehicular pursuits in the law because pursuits are inherently dangerous to the officers, the suspect, and the public at large.”

Fine. They have a plate, make of car, eye witnesses, and if the body cam, was on, film of the perp even causing the collision. If the pursuit thing is a problem, then they can drive to the perp’s home, park, and walk up to his front door and arrest him for hit and run.

In Washington State, a Hit and Run is considered a criminal offense. Consequences are significant and may include jail time, fines, restitution for injury or property damage, increased insurance costs, and the long-term impact of a criminal record. The may not be able to chase him in a vehicle, but they can throw him in jail and take some dime. Something about which way to skin a cat?

wy69

They have a plate, make of car, eye witnesses, and if the body cam, was on, film of the perp even causing the collision.

Might work if the car isn't stolen and if it's not some out of state gang banger with a trunk full of fenanyl.

A couple of months ago Tacoma police watch a guy run away from a murder scene because they didn't see him shoot the dead guy. The couldn't put a dog on his trail either: no probable cause.

“...no probable cause.”

They would have a little more than that with witnesses, film, and paint on the cars at least. They may not get them all, but I’d be satisfied with a small percentage.

I also live in Tacoma and we had an incident in Parkland where a guy had called 57 times for trespass on a guy and the state patrol, the group down here in charge, refused to do anything other than ask the guy not to go there. Well he did, the guy came out and asked him to leave. The trespasser and his girl friend were illegally parked on the private property doing drugs. The perp went back to the car, brought out a jar, and threw urine on the asker. The asker drew a weapon and killed him. Now the asker is waiting for a murder trial. If the cops had done what they should have, that may not have ever happened.

At least Minneapolis is waking up as they voted over the past couple of days not to defund the cops.

wy69

HB 1319. The approach of assuming that an incident with someone in crisis will result in violence rather than de-escalation, is what the law sought to change. Basically they are gambling that a crime in progress cannot get worse so why respond. What they fail to understand is that they are working with criminals whose initial intent was to harm and they will get braver at each moment they get away with the first act which may have been something akin to verbal assault. Consider the city takeovers in Seattle in the middle of last year for different reason.

This, of course, is contrary to facts because of the failure of the reporting. Canada is a perfect example. The feds limit the ownership of guns to protect yourself by saying they are not necessary. Well there’s more to that than just what happened.

There were no crimes because they weren’t reported. Past examples are by a publication posted on Statistics Canada reported that in 2009, only a small portion of crimes that happen are reported to the police (31% of all crimes), and this figure has been lowering from 1999 (37%) and 2004 (34%).[24] Only 54% of break and enters, 43% of robberies, and 34% of assaults are reported to the police. In 2020 The most common reason for not reporting a crime was the victim thought it was not important enough (68%). Other common reasons include; they think the police cannot do anything about it (59%), or they dealt with it another way (42%). And the trend has continued. There were over 2 million police-reported Criminal Code incidents (excluding traffic) in 2020, about 195,000 fewer incidents than in 2019. A 9.7 percent drop.

It’s happening in the US also. But that is consistent with the drop in police coverage with the defunding actions. Less cops, less capacity, more people thinking they won’t get help, no calls, increased crimes. Rocket science.

wy69

Makes perfect sense to the criminal commies.

All you have to do to lower crime is ignor it, that is until the dead bodies start piling up.

Of course it’s not just bodies. Did you notice? There’s hardly any shoplifting anymore, but there seem to be a lot of bums walking out of stores with $900 worth of stuff they didn’t pay for.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.