High Speed Chases Ending in Death - Whose Fault Is It, Really?

[George Costanza]

Cop spots a guy speeding. He follows him and turns on the red light. The guy does not yield and, in fact, takes off at a high rate of speed. The only offense observed by the officer is speeding. The car is not stolen. No warrants exist for the owner of the car (which the officer can determine by checking the license plate of the guy's car).

The officer gives chase. A high speed chase ensues which ends when the person being pursued runs a red light, broadsides a car and four people in the car are killied in the flaming crash.

Who is responsible for their deaths?

The guy who was running from the police officer, I hear you say? Really. Let's think about that one. The only observed offense was speeding. Why does the officer feel it necessary to initiate a high speed chase? Why doesn't he just get the guy's license number and wait for him to come home? Why not call for the helicopter and follow the guy just long enough for the copter to take over, follow the suspect and have other officers apprehend him when he stops? It has often been said, they may be able to outrun a single police car, but they can never outrun a radio. Why not use the radio to get the guy, thereby avoiding the dangers inherent in high speed chases?

It is one thing to go into a high speed pursuit of someone when there is a life-threatening situation involved. It is quite another to do so when the only offense observed is speeding or violation of some minor traffic violation.

Had the officer chosen to not initiate the chase, the four innocent people at the intersection would not have been killed.

We need legislation to prevent cops from engaging in high speed chases when there is no legitimate reason to do so. All too often, the only real reason for the chase is the ego of the cop on the back end of it. "By God, that son of a bitch isn't going to disobey MY command to stop!" And here we go . . .

I am all for apprehending criminals. But I am also all for not killing innocent civilians when there is no legitimate reason for the chase in the first place.

 

[California Girl]

The guy who was running from the police is to blame. A simple "but for your actions".

 

[syrenn]

And would happen if all a criminal had to do was run fast enough to get away? Off scott free?

Its the criminals fault for running.

 

[Care4all]

Cop spots a guy speeding. He follows him and turns on the red light. The guy does not yield and, in fact, takes off at a high rate of speed. The only offense observed by the officer is speeding. The car is not stolen. No warrants exist for the owner of the car (which the officer can determine by checking the license plate of the guy's car).

The officer gives chase. A high speed chase ensues which ends when the person being pursued runs a red light, broadsides a car and four people in the car are killied in the flaming crash.

Who is responsible for their deaths?

The guy who was running from the police officer, I hear you say? Really. Let's think about that one. The only observed offense was speeding. Why does the officer feel it necessary to initiate a high speed chase? Why doesn't he just get the guy's license number and wait for him to come home? Why not call for the helicopter and follow the guy just long enough for the copter to take over, follow the suspect and have other officers apprehend him when he stops? It has often been said, they may be able to outrun a single police car, but they can never outrun a radio. Why not use the radio to get the guy, thereby avoiding the dangers inherent in high speed chases?

It is one thing to go into a high speed pursuit of someone when there is a life-threatening situation involved. It is quite another to do so when the only offense observed is speeding or violation of some minor traffic violation.

Had the officer chosen to not initiate the chase, the four innocent people at the intersection would not have been killed.

We need legislation to prevent cops from engaging in high speed chases when there is no legitimate reason to do so. All too often, the only real reason for the chase is the ego of the cop on the back end of it. "By God, that son of a bitch isn't going to disobey MY command to stop!" And here we go . . .

I am all for apprehending criminals. But I am also all for not killing innocent civilians when there is no legitimate reason for the chase in the first place.

Each state has their own legislation regarding this....I have lived in a few states where they made it that cops can not pursue high speed chases in the manner above, with the circumstances of above...

the person being chased is at fault, if this state does not have cop protocol of not pursuing/chasing them.

 

[Samson]

Its George W. Bush's Fault.





I think it should be clear to everyone that his 8 year administration of sucking up to Big Oil, Halliburton, and Invading Iraq for Oil has allowed gasoline to be cheap enough that High Speed Chases are an Economical Alternative.

 

[Valerie]

Considering the purpose of the speeding law, which gives the cop authority to stop a speeding motorist in order to PROTECT innocent people from a high speed crash, I'd say the officer did NOT PROTECT people from a high speed crash by pursuing this motorist in a high speed chase. They are both at fault IMO for reckless endangerment.

 

[Valerie]

Its George W. Bush's Fault.

That too, of course!

 

[Zoom-boing]

While I believe it is the person being chased fault - had he pulled over when the cop flashed him four people wouldn't have died - I also agree with the OP. In these types of instances the cop should get the license plate number and pursue it that way. A high speed chase for minor traffic violations is needless.

 

[George Costanza]

Unfortunately, it is not as easy as most of you folks would have it. On this particular issue, I think you have to step back and take a look at the Big Picture. Is stopping someone whose only crime has been speeding or some other type of relatively minor traffic offense, worth risking the lives of innocent civilians?

To me, there is no question. It isn't. As a citizen, I would MUCH prefer that cops not pursue speeders who don't yield than to have to worry about being killed as a consequence of their doing so.

It is so easy to say: "Perp's fault! Run from the cops, too bad - let the chips fall where they may and devil take the hindmost. We can't have people running from our police."

Yes, we can. And for damn good reason in many cases.

 

[California Girl]

Unfortunately, it is not as easy as most of you folks would have it. On this particular issue, I think you have to step back and take a look at the Big Picture. Is stopping someone whose only crime has been speeding or some other type of relatively minor traffic offense, worth risking the lives of innocent civilians?

To me, there is no question. It isn't. As a citizen, I would MUCH prefer that cops not pursue speeders who don't yield than to have to worry about being killed as a consequence of their doing so.

It is so easy to say: "Perp's fault! Run from the cops, too bad - let the chips fall where they may and devil take the hindmost. We can't have people running from our police."

Yes, we can. And for damn good reason in many cases.

Step back further still, if the police had seen the guy commit an offense and done nothing, and that driver then went on to kill someone by driving recklessly, the drooling hordes would be whining that the police had the chance to stop him and did not.

 

[Samson]

Unfortunately, it is not as easy as most of you folks would have it. On this particular issue, I think you have to step back and take a look at the Big Picture. Is stopping someone whose only crime has been speeding or some other type of relatively minor traffic offense, worth risking the lives of innocent civilians?

To me, there is no question. It isn't. As a citizen, I would MUCH prefer that cops not pursue speeders who don't yield than to have to worry about being killed as a consequence of their doing so.

It is so easy to say: "Perp's fault! Run from the cops, too bad - let the chips fall where they may and devil take the hindmost. We can't have people running from our police."

Yes, we can. And for damn good reason in many cases.

So, you think that we should wait for people to run over a little old lady pushing a baby carriage before the cops can stop them?

 

[George Costanza]

Unfortunately, it is not as easy as most of you folks would have it. On this particular issue, I think you have to step back and take a look at the Big Picture. Is stopping someone whose only crime has been speeding or some other type of relatively minor traffic offense, worth risking the lives of innocent civilians?

To me, there is no question. It isn't. As a citizen, I would MUCH prefer that cops not pursue speeders who don't yield than to have to worry about being killed as a consequence of their doing so.

It is so easy to say: "Perp's fault! Run from the cops, too bad - let the chips fall where they may and devil take the hindmost. We can't have people running from our police."

Yes, we can. And for damn good reason in many cases.

Step back further still, if the police had seen the guy commit an offense and done nothing, and that driver then went on to kill someone by driving recklessly, the drooling hordes would be whining that the police had the chance to stop him and did not.

Except he wouldn't have been driving in a manner that endangers others but for being chaserd ed by the cop in the first instance. Most of the death/injury from high speed chases I know about would clearly never have happend if the cop had not been pursuing.

I once had a case where my client got red lighted for a traffic offense. He had some meth in the car, so he took off. The cop pursued him. My client ended up blowing a red light and broadsiding a car on the driver's side. Driving the car was an 18-year-old girl. He caved in her entire face, that had to be reconstructed surgically. The DA had photos of her before and after. Before the accident, she was very beautiful. Afterwards, not.

All because some macho cop wasn't about to let someone disobey HIS command to stop.

Bull shit.

 

[George Costanza]

Unfortunately, it is not as easy as most of you folks would have it. On this particular issue, I think you have to step back and take a look at the Big Picture. Is stopping someone whose only crime has been speeding or some other type of relatively minor traffic offense, worth risking the lives of innocent civilians?

To me, there is no question. It isn't. As a citizen, I would MUCH prefer that cops not pursue speeders who don't yield than to have to worry about being killed as a consequence of their doing so.

It is so easy to say: "Perp's fault! Run from the cops, too bad - let the chips fall where they may and devil take the hindmost. We can't have people running from our police."

Yes, we can. And for damn good reason in many cases.

So, you think that we should wait for people to run over a little old lady pushing a baby carriage before the cops can stop them?

No - I think that, unless the chase involves a life and death situation in some fashion, it shouldn't happen. The law generally does not equate property damage issues with life threatening issues. You can't kill someone because he wrote a bad check on your account. You can kill him if he is trying to kill you.

Same deal here. Unless life is being threatened by something the suspect is doing, cops should not be able to endager the lives of others by chasing the suspect at high speeds over public roads and highways.

 

[Mr Natural]

Coudn't the cop in persuit radio ahead for a patrol to enter the road in front of the perps' car and slow him down?

 

[syrenn]

So what your saying is

RUN FOREST RUN

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Cop spots a guy speeding. He follows him and turns on the red light. The guy does not yield and, in fact, takes off at a high rate of speed. The only offense observed by the officer is speeding. The car is not stolen. No warrants exist for the owner of the car (which the officer can determine by checking the license plate of the guy's car).

The officer gives chase. A high speed chase ensues which ends when the person being pursued runs a red light, broadsides a car and four people in the car are killied in the flaming crash.

Who is responsible for their deaths?

The guy who was running from the police officer, I hear you say? Really. Let's think about that one. The only observed offense was speeding. Why does the officer feel it necessary to initiate a high speed chase? Why doesn't he just get the guy's license number and wait for him to come home? Why not call for the helicopter and follow the guy just long enough for the copter to take over, follow the suspect and have other officers apprehend him when he stops? It has often been said, they may be able to outrun a single police car, but they can never outrun a radio. Why not use the radio to get the guy, thereby avoiding the dangers inherent in high speed chases?

It is one thing to go into a high speed pursuit of someone when there is a life-threatening situation involved. It is quite another to do so when the only offense observed is speeding or violation of some minor traffic violation.

Had the officer chosen to not initiate the chase, the four innocent people at the intersection would not have been killed.

We need legislation to prevent cops from engaging in high speed chases when there is no legitimate reason to do so. All too often, the only real reason for the chase is the ego of the cop on the back end of it. "By God, that son of a bitch isn't going to disobey MY command to stop!" And here we go . . .

I am all for apprehending criminals. But I am also all for not killing innocent civilians when there is no legitimate reason for the chase in the first place.

The responsibility is jointly shared by the speeder and the officer.

And would happen if all a criminal had to do was run fast enough to get away? Off scott free?

Its the criminals fault for running.

An attitude which leads to situations like this:

Detroit Police shoot 7-year-old girl in house search | detnews.com | The Detroit News

What possible justification is there for police to break into a home simply because they believe a suspect might be hiding in it? Does catching a murderer justify the death of a 7 year old girl under any circumstances?

Unfortunately, it is not as easy as most of you folks would have it. On this particular issue, I think you have to step back and take a look at the Big Picture. Is stopping someone whose only crime has been speeding or some other type of relatively minor traffic offense, worth risking the lives of innocent civilians?

To me, there is no question. It isn't. As a citizen, I would MUCH prefer that cops not pursue speeders who don't yield than to have to worry about being killed as a consequence of their doing so.

It is so easy to say: "Perp's fault! Run from the cops, too bad - let the chips fall where they may and devil take the hindmost. We can't have people running from our police."

Yes, we can. And for damn good reason in many cases.

Some will argue that this could result in more problems, but I think the result of the attitude of catching criminals at all costs has actually caused many more problems than letting them get away for a short time. The only exception for this should be if the person they are after is actively killing people as he wanders around free. In all other cases police should disengage.

Step back further still, if the police had seen the guy commit an offense and done nothing, and that driver then went on to kill someone by driving recklessly, the drooling hordes would be whining that the police had the chance to stop him and did not.

The point of this discussion is that a high speed pursuit is not stopping anyone, all it is is following him around in the hope that nothing will happen before he runs out of gas. High speed pursuits actively endanger innocent people's lives, and is the equivalent of shooting a missile at house where a wedding is occurring because most of the people there are terrorists.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Cop spots a guy speeding. He follows him and turns on the red light. The guy does not yield and, in fact, takes off at a high rate of speed. The only offense observed by the officer is speeding. The car is not stolen. No warrants exist for the owner of the car (which the officer can determine by checking the license plate of the guy's car).

The officer gives chase. A high speed chase ensues which ends when the person being pursued runs a red light, broadsides a car and four people in the car are killied in the flaming crash.

Who is responsible for their deaths?

The guy who was running from the police officer, I hear you say? Really. Let's think about that one. The only observed offense was speeding. Why does the officer feel it necessary to initiate a high speed chase? Why doesn't he just get the guy's license number and wait for him to come home? Why not call for the helicopter and follow the guy just long enough for the copter to take over, follow the suspect and have other officers apprehend him when he stops? It has often been said, they may be able to outrun a single police car, but they can never outrun a radio. Why not use the radio to get the guy, thereby avoiding the dangers inherent in high speed chases?

It is one thing to go into a high speed pursuit of someone when there is a life-threatening situation involved. It is quite another to do so when the only offense observed is speeding or violation of some minor traffic violation.

Had the officer chosen to not initiate the chase, the four innocent people at the intersection would not have been killed.

We need legislation to prevent cops from engaging in high speed chases when there is no legitimate reason to do so. All too often, the only real reason for the chase is the ego of the cop on the back end of it. "By God, that son of a bitch isn't going to disobey MY command to stop!" And here we go . . .

I am all for apprehending criminals. But I am also all for not killing innocent civilians when there is no legitimate reason for the chase in the first place.

Two things:

1. It's George Bush's fault (Drats! Samson beat me to it!)

2. You're an idiot. What if the speeder had your wife in the trunk, still OK to let him go his merry way?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Unfortunately, it is not as easy as most of you folks would have it. On this particular issue, I think you have to step back and take a look at the Big Picture. Is stopping someone whose only crime has been speeding or some other type of relatively minor traffic offense, worth risking the lives of innocent civilians?

To me, there is no question. It isn't. As a citizen, I would MUCH prefer that cops not pursue speeders who don't yield than to have to worry about being killed as a consequence of their doing so.

It is so easy to say: "Perp's fault! Run from the cops, too bad - let the chips fall where they may and devil take the hindmost. We can't have people running from our police."

Yes, we can. And for damn good reason in many cases.

To be fair, let's assign the blame: speeder 100%, cop 0%. At least we were fair about it

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Two things:

1. It's George Bush's fault

2. You're an idiot. What if the speeder had your wife in the trunk, still OK to let him go his merry way?

1. Irrelevant.

2. Would you prefer the cop engage in high speed pursuit, and end up killing your wife, or for him to get as much backup as possible, follow the person, and kill him before he gets your wife out of the trunk?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How the fuck do you know who's driving the car? All you have is a license plate? LOL

What a moron!