Unless a officer knows that a guy just shot someone and now is running, I don’t think that a high-speed chase is worth the danger it poses to the community. Gas skips, bank robberies, etc. are a loss of property, and the killing of innocent bystanders just to catch a guy that stole a tank of gas or $50,000 is not worth it. My friends’ teenage daughters were run into the freeway barrow pit while an officer chased down a gas skip. If there are good reasons that I’m not seeing, I’d appreciate some illumination.
Anyone who would engage in a high-speed chase is a danger to the community.
* * *
What is the point of having a law on the books if you’re not going to enforce it? Doesn’t matter if its a gas skip or a carjacking. The police need to be able to chase perps down.
Sad, but I see your point...
My view is that one who would take off and initiate a dangerous high speed chase is a scofflaw worthy of being caught......and likely guilty of more that simply evading arrest over a minor infraction.....
I wouldn’t have to think too long to give the LEO authorization to shoot the bastards immediately upon capture, if the chase resulted in ANYONE even being INJURED as a result of the chase....
In my realm — as King, it would go without saying that drunken drivers, escaping felons, drug mules, etc, etc....would be shot IMMEDIATELY upon capture..
Don’t Pass Go, Don’t collect $200 -— all they get is lead in the head...
On the one hand, I tend to agree with you. Speeding tickets, minor property crimes, etc, hardly seem worth putting the lives of everyone on the road at risk to capture them. Myself and a couple friends were very luck a couple of years back when, stopped at a traffic light on a highway, a car running from the police, and then the police close behind, blew by us doing about 100 mph, on the other side of the island at the intersection. Could have very easily taken us out.
OTOH, if it is known that the police will not pursue in all but the most serious cases, I can see the number of runners increasing greatly. And we do want speeders, drunks, etc, to pull over when they see the flashing lights behind them, right?
I’ve seen quite a few of those police chase shows (World’s Wildest Police Chases, etc), and some of the pursuits the cops engage in, which started as nothing more than a simple traffic stop, are quite frightening. I remember one where the cops are so intent on stopping a guy that they do the “P.I.T.” manouever on him on a two-lane highway with heavy oncoming traffic. It was only sheer luck (OK, probably some skill and planning, too) that they didn’t send him spinning in the path of an oncoming car.
I have mixed feelings about this decision, and you raise some good points.
I think that the police’s response has to be proportional to the threat, and running someone off the road for a suspended driver’s license seems extreme. I guess the reason for the suspension could be a factor. I am also concerned about other innocent drivers on the roadway that would be harmed as a result of a driver fleeing from police.
Difficult decisions - maybe it is better to have a jury of your peers decide if the police’s decision to chase was reasonable or disproportionate to the threat.
Well, Dr. Zzyzx—After you have “Been there”, come back and tell me what is “Reasonable”.
You see, the General Public gives “Situational Approval”. If it is someone who has harmed them, they want a forceful pursuit. If they might get hit in their car, they dont want you to chase anyone.
Damned if you do—Damned if you do not.
I do in general believe in restraint in these cases. But the perp had already shown he was willing to ram a police car to get away, and that makes him a dangerous person who must be caught.
I’m still waiting for portable EMP generators to kill the engines of modern cars.
Last year, we had a repete gas stealer kill the stations owner.. by running over him getting away.. http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/050822/killed.shtml
Not oppossing evil acts only encourage futher evil acts.. Same way with not opposing terrorist acts (as Clinton proved). By not allowing the criminal the promise if swift justice, you get what ole Solomon knew over 2000 years ago..
* Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Eccl. 8:11
It is that simple.. Ignoring a "PETTY" gas skip killed later on..
If everyone applied your sorry reasoning, we'd see a VAST increase in such crimes. Hell, if we are not going to pursue property crimes, why have a government at all?
Police have to apply a balancing test. There have definitely been cases of cops who were too zealous to engage in a high-speed chase over a relatively minor offense, but at the other extreme, if they had a firm policy of never engaging in a pursuit, a lot of folks will simply choose not to pull over. You'd never catch a car thief again.
In California, which has the most experience with these chases, the police usually hang back several car lengths, enough to keep the fleeing car in sight but not enough to pressure him to drive faster, They then radio ahead, try to close off on-ramps and get innocents out of the way, and try methods like spike strips before resorting to ramming. it also helps to have a helicopter to aid in the pursuit. The most famous example is the OJ chase, but they've refined the techniques since then, and not everyone is as calm as AC was.
In this case, the driver was recklessly endangering dozens of other motorists, and the officer asked his supervisor for permission to end the pursuit. Sounds like the department had procedures in place. Those procedures in any department are in flux, adjusting to different traffic and changes in driver behavior, not to mention new technology.
The elusive Holy Grail would be a way for police to disable a vehicle harmlessly -- something like a low-intensity EMP that would simply cause the engine to conk out. That won't be ready for a while.
Something that I would think would be feasible with existing technology would be a system that could attach a tracking device to a fleeing vehicle -- we have systems that can direct fire from a moving tank to a target a mile away with pinpoint precision, so I'm sure it's possible to build a system that would fire a harpoon with a radio beacon from a patrol car into the trunk lid of a car a hundred yards ahead. Basically an after-the-fact lo-jack. Making it cost-effective, that's another question.
Where the police have a huge advantage over a runner is that they're spread out all over the place, and they are equipped and trained to coordinate their efforts -- an old cop saying goes, you might outrun a Ford, but you can't outrun a Motorola.
I sort of agree. It is well established that the type of maneuver the cop used constitutes deadly force. Also established is a set of circumstances during which deadly force can be used.
I think in general, police shouldn't run a car off the road in any situation where they couldn't shoot. After watching the video from this case, I'd say the guy was reckless enough that he was causing a significant danger to other drivers and the officer did the right thing.
Arguing that the police 'forced' the chase on him is a bit specious - you can run from the police without speeding and running lights.
In all cases, I think a helicopter is the best option if it's available.