High Speed Chase Ends in Death - Is The Officer Guilty of Murder?

[RadiomanATL]

What if you run from an unlawful stop?

What if monkeys flew out your butt.

Stupid question btw.

You do know that police make unlawful stops on occasion? I am pretty sure that I have the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search, and that the police do not have the right to stop anyone and everyone they feel like.

What if the person driving the car is your daughter or wife, and she is in an area where someone who has been posing as a police officer has been raping woman after stopping them on deserted roads? Would you want her to pull over just because there were flashing lights behind her, or would you prefer that she keep driving, and pull into a well lighted, and populated' location before doing so?

Something like this actually happened in California, and the police all went to the legislature after the fact and lobbied against a law that would have allowed anyone to do this. The result was a law that actually makes it a criminal act not to stop whenever you see flashing lights behind you, no matter where you are, or what is happening.

Call me an idiot if you want, but that just proves that we give police to much power, and way too much benefit of the doubt.

We actually had a few instances of people impersonating police officers pulling people over here in the last few years. One of them wasn't a rape thing, but still a sexual harassment thing, IIRC. Guy was bugging women for "dates".

The other instance, the dude was just a whackjob, wannabe cop. IIRC, he even had "tickets" printed on pads of paper that he would hand out. Weirdo.

And I'm pretty sure that the law here is, as long as you do not try and pull away, maintain a reasonable speed and acknowledge the officer behind you, you can go a couple of miles until you feel safe to pull over. It's a pretty grey and vague area though....this how long you can go before pulling over. Luckily, most people down here have common sense.

 

[ConHog]

What if monkeys flew out your butt.

Stupid question btw.

You do know that police make unlawful stops on occasion? I am pretty sure that I have the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search, and that the police do not have the right to stop anyone and everyone they feel like.

What if the person driving the car is your daughter or wife, and she is in an area where someone who has been posing as a police officer has been raping woman after stopping them on deserted roads? Would you want her to pull over just because there were flashing lights behind her, or would you prefer that she keep driving, and pull into a well lighted, and populated' location before doing so?

Something like this actually happened in California, and the police all went to the legislature after the fact and lobbied against a law that would have allowed anyone to do this. The result was a law that actually makes it a criminal act not to stop whenever you see flashing lights behind you, no matter where you are, or what is happening.

Call me an idiot if you want, but that just proves that we give police to much power, and way too much benefit of the doubt.

We actually had a few instances of people impersonating police officers pulling people over here in the last few years. One of them wasn't a rape thing, but still a sexual harassment thing, IIRC. Guy was bugging women for "dates".

The other instance, the dude was just a whackjob, wannabe cop. IIRC, he even had "tickets" printed on pads of paper that he would hand out. Weirdo.

And I'm pretty sure that the law here is, as long as you do not try and pull away, maintain a reasonable speed and acknowledge the officer behind you, you can go a couple of miles until you feel safe to pull over. It's a pretty grey and vague area though....this how long you can go before pulling over. Luckily, most people down here have common sense.

That's pretty standard stuff, that if you're pulled over somewhere you don't feel comfortable you can drive to somewhere you DO feel comfortable, but that isn't the same thing as leading police in a high speed pursuit.

 

[goldcatt]

The stop wasn't unlawful in this case. The OP stated as such. We could pose silly hypotheticals all day and it would be a total waste of time. What does it solve? Any judge would tell you to move on. Quit wasting the courts time.

We're not IN court. We're tossing ideas and opinions around as though it were a hypothetical. What's all up your ass about somebody asking a question? You don't have to respond if you don't want to be part of that discussion. And it's actually an interesting question.

The answer of course is, if it's an unlawful stop, you (as a reasonable law abiding citizen) pull over anyway and if you are some how injured by this unlawful stop, you sue. what do you do NOT do is run. So , all this BS about maybe it was an illegal stop are just that BS. I mean I SUPPOSE someone could hypothetically refuse to pull over for sobriety checkpoints to claiming that maybe they aren't real police. We could play that game all day long, and then some.

It depends on the nature of the stop, and other factors. It's a little murky and a lot more nuanced than it appears, which is what makes it so interesting.

I'll ask you too, what chaps your ass about asking a question and tossing around a hypothetical or two? The thread belongs to everybody, not just a couple of you who want to tell the rest of us what we can play with. You don't want to waste your time, don't reply. I don't get it.

 

[RadiomanATL]

You do know that police make unlawful stops on occasion? I am pretty sure that I have the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search, and that the police do not have the right to stop anyone and everyone they feel like.

What if the person driving the car is your daughter or wife, and she is in an area where someone who has been posing as a police officer has been raping woman after stopping them on deserted roads? Would you want her to pull over just because there were flashing lights behind her, or would you prefer that she keep driving, and pull into a well lighted, and populated' location before doing so?

Something like this actually happened in California, and the police all went to the legislature after the fact and lobbied against a law that would have allowed anyone to do this. The result was a law that actually makes it a criminal act not to stop whenever you see flashing lights behind you, no matter where you are, or what is happening.

Call me an idiot if you want, but that just proves that we give police to much power, and way too much benefit of the doubt.

We actually had a few instances of people impersonating police officers pulling people over here in the last few years. One of them wasn't a rape thing, but still a sexual harassment thing, IIRC. Guy was bugging women for "dates".

The other instance, the dude was just a whackjob, wannabe cop. IIRC, he even had "tickets" printed on pads of paper that he would hand out. Weirdo.

And I'm pretty sure that the law here is, as long as you do not try and pull away, maintain a reasonable speed and acknowledge the officer behind you, you can go a couple of miles until you feel safe to pull over. It's a pretty grey and vague area though....this how long you can go before pulling over. Luckily, most people down here have common sense.

That's pretty standard stuff, that if you're pulled over somewhere you don't feel comfortable you can drive to somewhere you DO feel comfortable, but that isn't the same thing as leading police in a high speed pursuit.

Quantum wasn't asking if it was ever OK to run away. Just that people should be able to keep going until they felt safe. He also said that the police in California lobbied and made it a law that unless you pull over immediately, you are running from the police.

If true, just goes to show you that even the police in California are freaking bonkers.

 

[ConHog]

We're not IN court. We're tossing ideas and opinions around as though it were a hypothetical. What's all up your ass about somebody asking a question? You don't have to respond if you don't want to be part of that discussion. And it's actually an interesting question.

The answer of course is, if it's an unlawful stop, you (as a reasonable law abiding citizen) pull over anyway and if you are some how injured by this unlawful stop, you sue. what do you do NOT do is run. So , all this BS about maybe it was an illegal stop are just that BS. I mean I SUPPOSE someone could hypothetically refuse to pull over for sobriety checkpoints to claiming that maybe they aren't real police. We could play that game all day long, and then some.

It depends on the nature of the stop, and other factors. It's a little murky and a lot more nuanced than it appears, which is what makes it so interesting.

I'll ask you too, what chaps your ass about asking a question and tossing around a hypothetical or two? The thread belongs to everybody, not just a couple of you who want to tell the rest of us what we can play with. You don't want to waste your time, don't reply. I don't get it.

Where did you get the impression that I am chapped? I am not. I merely stated that it is stupid to suggest that sometimes running from the LEO is the best option. This isn't the old Soviet Union where if one gets arrested they might disappear forever. Now it IS true that a very small portion of people who come in contact with LEO in the US are subjected to harm, but that's what we have lawyers for. Far better to subject yourself to an unlawful stop and then sue if need be then to kill two children and end up being arrested anyway . Isn't it?

 

[goldcatt]

What if monkeys flew out your butt.

Stupid question btw.

You do know that police make unlawful stops on occasion? I am pretty sure that I have the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search, and that the police do not have the right to stop anyone and everyone they feel like.

What if the person driving the car is your daughter or wife, and she is in an area where someone who has been posing as a police officer has been raping woman after stopping them on deserted roads? Would you want her to pull over just because there were flashing lights behind her, or would you prefer that she keep driving, and pull into a well lighted, and populated' location before doing so?

Something like this actually happened in California, and the police all went to the legislature after the fact and lobbied against a law that would have allowed anyone to do this. The result was a law that actually makes it a criminal act not to stop whenever you see flashing lights behind you, no matter where you are, or what is happening.

Call me an idiot if you want, but that just proves that we give police to much power, and way too much benefit of the doubt.

We actually had a few instances of people impersonating police officers pulling people over here in the last few years. One of them wasn't a rape thing, but still a sexual harassment thing, IIRC. Guy was bugging women for "dates".

The other instance, the dude was just a whackjob, wannabe cop. IIRC, he even had "tickets" printed on pads of paper that he would hand out. Weirdo.

And I'm pretty sure that the law here is, as long as you do not try and pull away, maintain a reasonable speed and acknowledge the officer behind you, you can go a couple of miles until you feel safe to pull over. It's a pretty grey and vague area though....this how long you can go before pulling over. Luckily, most people down here have common sense.

Pulling over immediately isn't always safe for other reasons out here in the back of beyond. There are freaks just like everywhere, but there are also blind turns, areas with very narrow or no shoulder, all sorts of situations that would make a stop on the side of the road dangerous for all involved.

If the stop were unlawful for other reasons, you get into a huge gobbledy gook of Fourth Amendment rules and technicalities, some of which are proscriptions but most of which are evidentiary. Which basically boils down to there's very little you can do to halt most (but not all) stops or searches on the side of the road, only fight them after the fact if it leads to charges being filed.

 

[ConHog]

We actually had a few instances of people impersonating police officers pulling people over here in the last few years. One of them wasn't a rape thing, but still a sexual harassment thing, IIRC. Guy was bugging women for "dates".

The other instance, the dude was just a whackjob, wannabe cop. IIRC, he even had "tickets" printed on pads of paper that he would hand out. Weirdo.

And I'm pretty sure that the law here is, as long as you do not try and pull away, maintain a reasonable speed and acknowledge the officer behind you, you can go a couple of miles until you feel safe to pull over. It's a pretty grey and vague area though....this how long you can go before pulling over. Luckily, most people down here have common sense.

That's pretty standard stuff, that if you're pulled over somewhere you don't feel comfortable you can drive to somewhere you DO feel comfortable, but that isn't the same thing as leading police in a high speed pursuit.

Quantum wasn't asking if it was ever OK to run away. Just that people should be able to keep going until they felt safe. He also said that the police in California lobbied and made it a law that unless you pull over immediately, you are running from the police.

If true, just goes to show you that even the police in California are freaking bonkers.

My wife had a case just a few weeks ago where a lady was driving into town, fairly dark road but still a state highway, she was approximately 8 miles from town, speeding and an undercover just happened to be behind her and lit her up for speeding (and by undercover I mean the cars that are undercover , but EVERYONE knows they are actually cop cars) now the women was doing 80 in a 55 when the LEO got her, but she didn't even attempt to slow down for a couple miles then eventually slowed down to a reasonable speed then drove all the way into town and to a convenience store before pulling over. Now the cops of course arrested her, and it ended up on my wife's desk , and in THAT circumstances she chose to prosecute for evading the police as well as speeding.

So, I can see the desire for LEO to have such a law, but as you said a few posts back, some common sense needs to be applied. If the woman had immediately slowed down, signified to the LEO that she was aware he was there and intended to comply then proceeded to a lit store to pull over I can guarantee my wife wouldn't have added the additional charge.

Hasn't been to court yet, so who knows how it will play out............

 

[RadiomanATL]

That's pretty standard stuff, that if you're pulled over somewhere you don't feel comfortable you can drive to somewhere you DO feel comfortable, but that isn't the same thing as leading police in a high speed pursuit.

Quantum wasn't asking if it was ever OK to run away. Just that people should be able to keep going until they felt safe. He also said that the police in California lobbied and made it a law that unless you pull over immediately, you are running from the police.

If true, just goes to show you that even the police in California are freaking bonkers.

My wife had a case just a few weeks ago where a lady was driving into town, fairly dark road but still a state highway, she was approximately 8 miles from town, speeding and an undercover just happened to be behind her and lit her up for speeding (and by undercover I mean the cars that are undercover , but EVERYONE knows they are actually cop cars) now the women was doing 80 in a 55 when the LEO got her, but she didn't even attempt to slow down for a couple miles then eventually slowed down to a reasonable speed then drove all the way into town and to a convenience store before pulling over. Now the cops of course arrested her, and it ended up on my wife's desk , and in THAT circumstances she chose to prosecute for evading the police as well as speeding.

So, I can see the desire for LEO to have such a law, but as you said a few posts back, some common sense needs to be applied. If the woman had immediately slowed down, signified to the LEO that she was aware he was there and intended to comply then proceeded to a lit store to pull over I can guarantee my wife wouldn't have added the additional charge.

Hasn't been to court yet, so who knows how it will play out............

I agree. Her continuing at a high speed for such a period of time becomes fleeing in my view. She just changed her mind.

 

[MikeK]

The jerk in the red car could just have rolled to a stop, got the ticket and most of the time rolled on. He chose to be stupid, and it was his acts that caused the deaths, not the officers. It was not the officer who did the driving over the kids.


You are totally responsible for what you do. What others do is up to them.

The police officer knows, or should know, that a high-speed vehicular pursuit can have massively lethal consequences. Having no cause to believe the driver of the red car is guilty of anything more than a minor traffic offense the officer has chosen to initiate a potentially lethal activity.

How do you justify jeopardizing the public safety for such a minor infraction?

 

[SFC Ollie]

The jerk in the red car could just have rolled to a stop, got the ticket and most of the time rolled on. He chose to be stupid, and it was his acts that caused the deaths, not the officers. It was not the officer who did the driving over the kids.


You are totally responsible for what you do. What others do is up to them.

The police officer knows, or should know, that a high-speed vehicular pursuit can have massively lethal consequences. Having no cause to believe the driver of the red car is guilty of anything more than a minor traffic offense the officer has chosen to initiate a potentially lethal activity.

How do you justify jeopardizing the public safety for such a minor infraction?

If the driver ran because of a minor infraction, why did they run? You see automatically if they run the Officer I hope would suspect they are hiding something. And that something will normally be more than some minor infraction. At least that's the way I would see it.

 

[ConHog]

The jerk in the red car could just have rolled to a stop, got the ticket and most of the time rolled on. He chose to be stupid, and it was his acts that caused the deaths, not the officers. It was not the officer who did the driving over the kids.


You are totally responsible for what you do. What others do is up to them.

The police officer knows, or should know, that a high-speed vehicular pursuit can have massively lethal consequences. Having no cause to believe the driver of the red car is guilty of anything more than a minor traffic offense the officer has chosen to initiate a potentially lethal activity.

How do you justify jeopardizing the public safety for such a minor infraction?

If the driver ran because of a minor infraction, why did they run? You see automatically if they run the Officer I hope would suspect they are hiding something. And that something will normally be more than some minor infraction. At least that's the way I would see it.

that is of course the way any sane person sees it, because it is reality. NO ONE runs from LEO over a minor traffic violation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What if monkeys flew out your butt.

Stupid question btw.

You do know that police make unlawful stops on occasion? I am pretty sure that I have the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search, and that the police do not have the right to stop anyone and everyone they feel like.

What if the person driving the car is your daughter or wife, and she is in an area where someone who has been posing as a police officer has been raping woman after stopping them on deserted roads? Would you want her to pull over just because there were flashing lights behind her, or would you prefer that she keep driving, and pull into a well lighted, and populated' location before doing so?

Something like this actually happened in California, and the police all went to the legislature after the fact and lobbied against a law that would have allowed anyone to do this. The result was a law that actually makes it a criminal act not to stop whenever you see flashing lights behind you, no matter where you are, or what is happening.

Call me an idiot if you want, but that just proves that we give police to much power, and way too much benefit of the doubt.

Yes...but only in the movies.

No...seriously...there was no search here. If you want to go off on a tangent.....fine. We could lawyer the fuck out of this till Doomsday. I'm not willing to indulge you.

Maybe keeping to the facts of this case would keep you better on track.

Only in the movies? The case I am talking about happened in the 50s or 60s, but it has happened since then.

Tampa police search for rapist who posed as a cop - St. Petersburg Times

It is far from happening only in the movies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The stop wasn't unlawful in this case. The OP stated as such. We could pose silly hypotheticals all day and it would be a total waste of time. What does it solve? Any judge would tell you to move on. Quit wasting the courts time.

We're not IN court. We're tossing ideas and opinions around as though it were a hypothetical. What's all up your ass about somebody asking a question? You don't have to respond if you don't want to be part of that discussion. And it's actually an interesting question.

The answer of course is, if it's an unlawful stop, you (as a reasonable law abiding citizen) pull over anyway and if you are some how injured by this unlawful stop, you sue. what do you do NOT do is run. So , all this BS about maybe it was an illegal stop are just that BS. I mean I SUPPOSE someone could hypothetically refuse to pull over for sobriety checkpoints to claiming that maybe they aren't real police. We could play that game all day long, and then some.

Why?

If I know it is unlawful, me pulling over anyway is both unreasonable, and unlawful.

If a cop was raping young woman, and your daughter called and said there was a cop following her, would you tell her to be reasonable and lawful and just pull over because she can sue the cop if she gets raped? Of course you wouldn't, because that is the dumbest attitude it is possible to have.

Playing the game lets cops get away with things that are intolerable, and I will not play it. If that makes the good cops jobs harder, they should consider getting rid of the bad cops so that I do not feel a need to defend my civil rights if a cop is in a bad mood.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What if monkeys flew out your butt.

Stupid question btw.

You do know that police make unlawful stops on occasion? I am pretty sure that I have the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search, and that the police do not have the right to stop anyone and everyone they feel like.

What if the person driving the car is your daughter or wife, and she is in an area where someone who has been posing as a police officer has been raping woman after stopping them on deserted roads? Would you want her to pull over just because there were flashing lights behind her, or would you prefer that she keep driving, and pull into a well lighted, and populated' location before doing so?

Something like this actually happened in California, and the police all went to the legislature after the fact and lobbied against a law that would have allowed anyone to do this. The result was a law that actually makes it a criminal act not to stop whenever you see flashing lights behind you, no matter where you are, or what is happening.

Call me an idiot if you want, but that just proves that we give police to much power, and way too much benefit of the doubt.

We actually had a few instances of people impersonating police officers pulling people over here in the last few years. One of them wasn't a rape thing, but still a sexual harassment thing, IIRC. Guy was bugging women for "dates".

The other instance, the dude was just a whackjob, wannabe cop. IIRC, he even had "tickets" printed on pads of paper that he would hand out. Weirdo.

And I'm pretty sure that the law here is, as long as you do not try and pull away, maintain a reasonable speed and acknowledge the officer behind you, you can go a couple of miles until you feel safe to pull over. It's a pretty grey and vague area though....this how long you can go before pulling over. Luckily, most people down here have common sense.

I see no reason police would have a problem with that, but some of them do. I am not sure that the law ever got on the books, but I do know the police got it passed that a person is required to stop at the first place they are aware of the police. Some police have a problem with anyone who challenges their authority.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You do know that police make unlawful stops on occasion? I am pretty sure that I have the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search, and that the police do not have the right to stop anyone and everyone they feel like.

What if the person driving the car is your daughter or wife, and she is in an area where someone who has been posing as a police officer has been raping woman after stopping them on deserted roads? Would you want her to pull over just because there were flashing lights behind her, or would you prefer that she keep driving, and pull into a well lighted, and populated' location before doing so?

Something like this actually happened in California, and the police all went to the legislature after the fact and lobbied against a law that would have allowed anyone to do this. The result was a law that actually makes it a criminal act not to stop whenever you see flashing lights behind you, no matter where you are, or what is happening.

Call me an idiot if you want, but that just proves that we give police to much power, and way too much benefit of the doubt.

We actually had a few instances of people impersonating police officers pulling people over here in the last few years. One of them wasn't a rape thing, but still a sexual harassment thing, IIRC. Guy was bugging women for "dates".

The other instance, the dude was just a whackjob, wannabe cop. IIRC, he even had "tickets" printed on pads of paper that he would hand out. Weirdo.

And I'm pretty sure that the law here is, as long as you do not try and pull away, maintain a reasonable speed and acknowledge the officer behind you, you can go a couple of miles until you feel safe to pull over. It's a pretty grey and vague area though....this how long you can go before pulling over. Luckily, most people down here have common sense.

That's pretty standard stuff, that if you're pulled over somewhere you don't feel comfortable you can drive to somewhere you DO feel comfortable, but that isn't the same thing as leading police in a high speed pursuit.

Like that guy who was taking his wife to the hospital and got tackled because he refused to stop? Someone is not running from LEOs just because they do not stop when the police are behind them. Police tend to have issues with people not doing exactly what they say, when they say it. I have a problem with that, and always will.

 

[ConHog]

We actually had a few instances of people impersonating police officers pulling people over here in the last few years. One of them wasn't a rape thing, but still a sexual harassment thing, IIRC. Guy was bugging women for "dates".

The other instance, the dude was just a whackjob, wannabe cop. IIRC, he even had "tickets" printed on pads of paper that he would hand out. Weirdo.

And I'm pretty sure that the law here is, as long as you do not try and pull away, maintain a reasonable speed and acknowledge the officer behind you, you can go a couple of miles until you feel safe to pull over. It's a pretty grey and vague area though....this how long you can go before pulling over. Luckily, most people down here have common sense.

That's pretty standard stuff, that if you're pulled over somewhere you don't feel comfortable you can drive to somewhere you DO feel comfortable, but that isn't the same thing as leading police in a high speed pursuit.

Like that guy who was taking his wife to the hospital and got tackled because he refused to stop? Someone is not running from LEOs just because they do not stop when the police are behind them. Police tend to have issues with people not doing exactly what they say, when they say it. I have a problem with that, and always will.

We already had that thread, the guy was an idiot for not dialing 911. End of story.

 

[mudwhistle]

You do know that police make unlawful stops on occasion? I am pretty sure that I have the right not to be subjected to unreasonable search, and that the police do not have the right to stop anyone and everyone they feel like.

What if the person driving the car is your daughter or wife, and she is in an area where someone who has been posing as a police officer has been raping woman after stopping them on deserted roads? Would you want her to pull over just because there were flashing lights behind her, or would you prefer that she keep driving, and pull into a well lighted, and populated' location before doing so?

Something like this actually happened in California, and the police all went to the legislature after the fact and lobbied against a law that would have allowed anyone to do this. The result was a law that actually makes it a criminal act not to stop whenever you see flashing lights behind you, no matter where you are, or what is happening.

Call me an idiot if you want, but that just proves that we give police to much power, and way too much benefit of the doubt.

Yes...but only in the movies.

No...seriously...there was no search here. If you want to go off on a tangent.....fine. We could lawyer the fuck out of this till Doomsday. I'm not willing to indulge you.

Maybe keeping to the facts of this case would keep you better on track.

Only in the movies? The case I am talking about happened in the 50s or 60s, but it has happened since then.

Tampa police search for rapist who posed as a cop - St. Petersburg Times

It is far from happening only in the movies.

OMG Wow. I mean...Wow!!!!

Back in the 50s? Wow!!!

Why don't we just take a stroll down night-stick lane and relive all of the ass-whuppings the pigs unleashed on our grandparents. That should cause a shiver to go up your leg.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes...but only in the movies.

No...seriously...there was no search here. If you want to go off on a tangent.....fine. We could lawyer the fuck out of this till Doomsday. I'm not willing to indulge you.

Maybe keeping to the facts of this case would keep you better on track.

Only in the movies? The case I am talking about happened in the 50s or 60s, but it has happened since then.

Tampa police search for rapist who posed as a cop - St. Petersburg Times

It is far from happening only in the movies.

OMG Wow. I mean...Wow!!!!

Back in the 50s? Wow!!!

Why don't we just take a stroll down night-stick lane and relive all of the ass-whuppings the pigs unleashed on our grandparents. That should cause a shiver to go up your leg.

Why do you have a need to give other people the authority to stop you at their will? Do you think that you might do something wrong if the police do not have the right to invade your privacy at the slightest whim?

 

[ConHog]

Only in the movies? The case I am talking about happened in the 50s or 60s, but it has happened since then.

Tampa police search for rapist who posed as a cop - St. Petersburg Times

It is far from happening only in the movies.

OMG Wow. I mean...Wow!!!!

Back in the 50s? Wow!!!

Why don't we just take a stroll down night-stick lane and relive all of the ass-whuppings the pigs unleashed on our grandparents. That should cause a shiver to go up your leg.

Why do you have a need to give other people the authority to stop you at their will? Do you think that you might do something wrong if the police do not have the right to invade your privacy at the slightest whim?

please give examples of how many times LEO have stopped someone for no reason, then we will compare that to the total number of stops. I'm sure there are a few times, but you act as if it is an epidemic. Get real.

 

[MikeK]

[No.

The OP said the driver of the red car was driving recklessly (ran the stop sign, as I recall?) BEFORE the pursuit.

No.

The OP said the red car rolled through a stop sign without coming to a full stop, which is neither "reckless" nor uncommon.

The officer has no reason to expect this driver to slow down through a school zone, regardless of whether or not he is being persued.

He also has no reason to expect that he won't. Rolling through a stop sign without coming to a full stop is not in itself an indication of reckless tendency. How many of us have never done that but would not think of speeding in a school zone?

In fact, he could just as easily assumed the driver of the red car was impaired on PCP, hallucinating, and would be lucky not to hit more than just two kids.

And he could also assume the driver is a domestic terrorist with a bomb in the car and is on the way to blow up the school or assassinate the principal. "Observed" and "determined" are good words for a cop to use in court. "Assumed" is a bad one.

As I remember the last time you conjured up a senario like this, George, there is always the false supposition that the officer has a crystal ball on his dash that always sees the perpatrator through rose colored glasses.

I don't see what that has to do with this situation, which is relatively uncomplicated. A car doesn't come to a full stop. A police officer signals for the driver to stop. The driver chooses to evade by speeding in the vicinity of a school zone. The officer has two choices: Engage in a high-speed pursuit, which could result in a lethal accident, or put the plate number and description on the air so the owner of the car could be visited by police and possibly charged with a felony.