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

[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?

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.

I agree.

So, I'm going 80 mph through a school zone, and some cop wants to ticket me, he oughta go 20 mph until he catches up to me, or I voluntarily stop.

 

[Shogun]

In their firearms training police officers are emphatically cautioned to avoid the potential consequences of stray rounds and to not use potentially deadly force unless it is absolutely necessary.

Absolutely necessary! Engaging in high-speed pursuit is potentially deadly force -- and there are many examples of extreme collateral damage, along with many deaths, which occur as the result of high-speed pursuits, many of which are not necessary.

I am reminded of a COPS tv documentary in which a man in a car attempted to negotiate a sexual act with a female undercover vice cop posing as a hooker. When the bust car rolled up the man realized what was happening, accelerated -- damaging the front fender of the police vehicle in his panic to escape, drove off and was pursued by the bust car. After a rather wild chase the man lost control making a turn, bounced off two parked cars and rammed into the wooden front steps of a house, destroying them.

The man, whose face was bloody from the crash, was dragged from the car, slammed face down on the sidewalk, handcuffed, yanked to his feet and slammed across the hood of the police vehicle. I noted that the man was about fifty, rather skinny and certainly not the type who appeals to women. So it was understandable why the poor fellow was trying to do what comes naturally by the only means available to him. He hadn't harmed anyone and I will say the undercover female cop was enticing in a short skirt and halter (well worth twenty bucks).

What might have been a desk-appearance summons and a fine for promoting prostitution had escalated into a high-speed chase, charges of vehicular evasion, reckless endangerment and resisting arrest -- which meant jail time in addition to the cost of all the property damage and whatever personal and social consequences might follow.

I have heard of similar situations in which small amounts of drugs were the provocation for high-speed chases, some of which resulted in extreme injuries or death and massive property damage. So I believe the same emphasis on precaution in the use of firearms should apply to the use of motor vehicles. Unless it is necessary to apprehend a dangerous felon or to prevent some serious offense, high-speed chases should not be permitted. They are simply not worth the potential consequences.

so work to legalize prostitution or drugs. But, when a criminal tries to flee and kills someone because of HIS decision not to stop for the authority of the police then the repercussions of that choice are on the criminal, not the cops.

 

[Shogun]

I would love to see you provide an example of a cop watching a crime happen and then going on to choose to disregard it and go wait for the criminal at their home. The speeder could have himself, who was speeding in the first place, killed other people. Should the cop have predicted that outcome? Like i said, farcical.

Do you realize that you are challenging me to defend a position I do not have? Isn't there a word for that?

at 4:36 in the pm you responded "Yet that is exactly what many departments do" to my statement regarding how farcical it is to suggest that a cop disregard a crime in progress and engage them later at their home. This is why I asked you for an example of such. Perhaps you regret the particular choice of words that you used....

"whose only crime is speeding"?

whatever. the cop doesn't know if, and has the valid concern to find out, if there is a reason said motorist is speeding and he should have given chase. Especially since the speeder didn't pull over when the cop put his lights on. The speeder is responsible for the lives lost and should, at the very least, be charged with aggravated manslaughter. Rationalizing the original crime of speeding, and suggesting the laughable solution of just waiting for the speeder to come home (as if this were mayberry) is just farcical.

Yet that is exactly what many departments do, and the result is no deaths as a result of high speed chases, and no one has ever attributed a death to the lack of a chase either.

 

[bodecea]

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 one chased can now be charges and convicted of Murder. We had a motorcycle cop killed this weekend in the LA area while on a chase...ran into a semi-trailer truck. They caught the guy he was chasing...that guy will now be charged with the policeman's murder.

 

[xotoxi]

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.

I agree.

So, I'm going 80 mph through a school zone, and some cop wants to ticket me, he oughta go 20 mph until he catches up to me, or I voluntarily stop.

We don't need TWO cars going 80 MPH through the School Zone...one is bad enough.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

in your example here the crime is robbery and not the prolonged, public risk of speeding. Of course a recorded license plate number of a criminal already gone will prompt the cops looking for him in locations up to, and including his home. How, post a link to a single Chase In Progress where the police decided to just say fuckit.


The cop cannot check and find out if the driver is inebriated, or impaired in some other way. Leaving a speeder who refuses to stop on the road is neglecting the public safety entirely. Your argument here is checked by the PLETHORA of circumstances that cannot be verified by a simple call to dispatch.

speeding, and refusing to stop for a cop, is not a mere traffic violation any more than resisting arrest is merely exercise. Your opinion of what should and shouldn't count means two things. I'll let you guess what they are.

and, just so you know, speeding in traffic, despite a cop in pursuit, is not a MINOR offense. The More You Know.

it's not about ego. it's about public safety. You are trying to demonize the cop for doing his job. A job meant to keep the public safe from assholes like speeders who think that the world and it's highways revolve around their risky driving. Sorry, your logic needs a helmet.

Ps, your jaded opinion of cops seems to be the core of your disagreement with policy here. I guess that means I should have just ignored you in the first place. Demonizing all cops, and generalizing YOUR opinion of what YOU think most cops are like, is probably why every post that you've offered thus far is so peewee herman farcical.


seriously.

Do you think the cops are always right?

There is a case from the annals of history where a man had a car that was similar to the ones police routinely use. He decked it out with lights and proceeded to pull over young women and rape them in dark and secluded areas. They eventually found the scumbag responsible for this, but a few people wanted to help make this harder for someone to pull off in the future, so the lobbied the California state legislature to allow anyone who sees red lights their mirror to drive to a lighted, and populated, area in order to be sure the person pulling them over was actually a cop.

Guess who came out strong in opposition to this law? That's right, the CHP opposed it, and actually succeeded it making it a crime to not stop as soon as you see red lights in your mirror. I am sure this made all the potential victims of false cops feel a lot safer.

 

[Samson]

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.

I agree.

So, I'm going 80 mph through a school zone, and some cop wants to ticket me, he oughta go 20 mph until he catches up to me, or I voluntarily stop.

We don't need TWO cars going 80 MPH through the School Zone...one is bad enough.

Yes, which is why I'll continue to be able to drive past your kid's (or my kid's) school at 80 mph: I never need worry about being caught.

And, so I hit one of the little anklebiters: The cops won't do anything because xotoxi has told them that, "We don't need TWO cars going 80 MPH through the School Zone...one is bad enough."

 

[George Costanza]

I agree.

So, I'm going 80 mph through a school zone, and some cop wants to ticket me, he oughta go 20 mph until he catches up to me, or I voluntarily stop.

We don't need TWO cars going 80 MPH through the School Zone...one is bad enough.

Yes, which is why I'll continue to be able to drive past your kid's (or my kid's) school at 80 mph: I never need worry about being caught.

And, so I hit one of the little anklebiters: The cops won't do anything because xotoxi has told them that, "We don't need TWO cars going 80 MPH through the School Zone...one is bad enough."

I don't know who introduced a car going 80 mph through a school zone, but it is a poor example. Someone driving like that could well be a danger to others, and perhaps a high speed pursuit might be justified in order to take the guy down before he kills someone WITHOUT the added "encouragement" of a police car chasing him.

But most of the examples being discussed on this thread concern high speed chases as the result of someone who commits a MINOR traffic offense and then fails to stop. Big difference.

How would you address this latter issue?

 

[Samson]

We don't need TWO cars going 80 MPH through the School Zone...one is bad enough.

Yes, which is why I'll continue to be able to drive past your kid's (or my kid's) school at 80 mph: I never need worry about being caught.

And, so I hit one of the little anklebiters: The cops won't do anything because xotoxi has told them that, "We don't need TWO cars going 80 MPH through the School Zone...one is bad enough."

I don't know who introduced a car going 80 mph through a school zone, but it is a poor example. Someone driving like that could well be a danger to others, and perhaps a high speed pursuit might be justified in order to take the guy down before he kills someone WITHOUT the added "encouragement" of a police car chasing him.

But most of the examples being discussed on this thread concern high speed chases as the result of someone who commits a MINOR traffic offense and then fails to stop. Big difference.

How would you address this latter issue?

I thought going 80 mph through a school zone (without hit-and-run) was minor.

Give me an example of a "Minor" traffic Violation that you believe the cops should ignore, and I'll give you an example of a law no one will obey.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would love to see you provide an example of a cop watching a crime happen and then going on to choose to disregard it and go wait for the criminal at their home. The speeder could have himself, who was speeding in the first place, killed other people. Should the cop have predicted that outcome? Like i said, farcical.

Do you realize that you are challenging me to defend a position I do not have? Isn't there a word for that?

at 4:36 in the pm you responded "Yet that is exactly what many departments do" to my statement regarding how farcical it is to suggest that a cop disregard a crime in progress and engage them later at their home. This is why I asked you for an example of such. Perhaps you regret the particular choice of words that you used....

"whose only crime is speeding"?

whatever. the cop doesn't know if, and has the valid concern to find out, if there is a reason said motorist is speeding and he should have given chase. Especially since the speeder didn't pull over when the cop put his lights on. The speeder is responsible for the lives lost and should, at the very least, be charged with aggravated manslaughter. Rationalizing the original crime of speeding, and suggesting the laughable solution of just waiting for the speeder to come home (as if this were mayberry) is just farcical.

Yet that is exactly what many departments do, and the result is no deaths as a result of high speed chases, and no one has ever attributed a death to the lack of a chase either.

Very good. You can actually cite the posts that prove you wrong, look at the parts I highlighted for you and see that I said no such thing. Until the precrime bill actually passes somewhere we can not be arrested for something that might happen.

Here is a list of various police departments that limit pursuits when people might be in danger:

Pursuit Policy Database

The interesting thing is that Orlando, which just might have the most restrictive pursuit policy, has not seen an increase in criminal activity as a result of police not being able to pursue criminals.

Violent Forcible Felonies: For the purpose of this directive, shall be when a suspect has committed or attempted
to commit:
1.
Murder.
2.
Manslaughter.
3.
Armed robbery.
4.
Armed sexual battery.
5.
Arson to a structure reasonably believed to be occupied.
6.
Use of explosive devices to a structure reasonably believed to be occupied.
7.
Kidnapping
8.
Armed carjacking.
9.
Burglary armed with a firearm.
10.
Aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon (firearm, edged weapon). Does not
include a motor vehicle.
11. Aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer resulting in serious injury.
NOTE: The fact that an officer had to move from the path of a fleeing vehicle does not constitute an aggravated
assault, attempted murder, attempted aggravated battery, or attempted manslaughter for the purposes of this policy.

http://www.pursuitwatch.org/pursuit_policies/Orlando_Florida.doc

This actually means that I could commit a crime, have that crime witnessed by a police officer, and that officer would be unable to pursue me if I jumped in a car and sped away.

 

[George Costanza]

Rationalizing the original crime of speeding, and suggesting the laughable solution of just waiting for the speeder to come home (as if this were mayberry) is just farcical.

Is it? You seem to be ignoring the many, documented cases where, in the name of apprehending someone who has merely broken a traffic law, innocent people have died or been permanently maimed, disfigured and/or injured.

When viewed in that (undeniable) context, how "farcical" does it really seem to you?

You may be willing to make a trade-off like that; I sure am not. But then, like so many conservatives, since you don't see it ever happening to you, it apparently doesn't concern you.

 

[George Costanza]

Yes, which is why I'll continue to be able to drive past your kid's (or my kid's) school at 80 mph: I never need worry about being caught.

And, so I hit one of the little anklebiters: The cops won't do anything because xotoxi has told them that, "We don't need TWO cars going 80 MPH through the School Zone...one is bad enough."

I don't know who introduced a car going 80 mph through a school zone, but it is a poor example. Someone driving like that could well be a danger to others, and perhaps a high speed pursuit might be justified in order to take the guy down before he kills someone WITHOUT the added "encouragement" of a police car chasing him.

But most of the examples being discussed on this thread concern high speed chases as the result of someone who commits a MINOR traffic offense and then fails to stop. Big difference.

How would you address this latter issue?

I thought going 80 mph through a school zone (without hit-and-run) was minor.

Give me an example of a "Minor" traffic Violation that you believe the cops should ignore, and I'll give you an example of a law no one will obey.

Each case turns on its own facts. But I would say any traffic violation that does not involve a life and death situation.

You seem to think that people "get away" with the commission of crims if they run fron the police and the police let them go. Guess again, Mojambo. All it takes is a license plate number, and the majority of rabbits will ultimately pay the price - and then some, because there will be the added charge of fleeing from the cop.

 

[Samson]

Rationalizing the original crime of speeding, and suggesting the laughable solution of just waiting for the speeder to come home (as if this were mayberry) is just farcical.

Is it? You seem to be ignoring the many, documented cases where, in the name of apprehending someone who has merely broken a traffic law, innocent people have died or been permanently maimed, disfigured and/or injured.

When viewed in that (undeniable) context, how "farcical" does it really seem to you?

You may be willing to make a trade-off like that; I sure am not. But then, like most conservatives, since you don't see it ever happening to you, it doesn't really concern you.

You realise that by using the Shogun, "Farcical" you don't make more sense.

But I digress.

I think you invite MORE lawless.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I agree with you. However, this would lead one to ask, why did the perp run in the first place? Was it simply because he had some crack cocaine on the dashboard that he didn't want to get busted for or was there a little girl (whom he had just raped) tied up in the back seat that he planned on killing?

The helicopter tracking is the best method in my books. You don't want to just let the guy go.

However, that being said, blame would in my opinion fall upon the runner and not the police.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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?

That doesn't follow with the scenario given.

The cop attempted to pull over the perp and then the perp took off.

Most times, the cop would attempt to pull over the speeder and the speeder is going to pull over. In this case the guy ran at which point the danger intensifies. The decision needs to be made here as to whether or not to pursue the stop or wait for a safer point in time at which the perp can be apprehended.

Immie

 

[Samson]

The decision needs to be made here as to whether or not to pursue the stop or wait for a safer point in time at which the perp can be apprehended.

Immie

Oh......

I wasn't aware that law inforcement had been issued crystal balls so they could "wait for a safer point in time" to carry out their duties.

 

[Immanuel]

in your example here the crime is robbery and not the prolonged, public risk of speeding. Of course a recorded license plate number of a criminal already gone will prompt the cops looking for him in locations up to, and including his home. How, post a link to a single Chase In Progress where the police decided to just say fuckit.


The cop cannot check and find out if the driver is inebriated, or impaired in some other way. Leaving a speeder who refuses to stop on the road is neglecting the public safety entirely. Your argument here is checked by the PLETHORA of circumstances that cannot be verified by a simple call to dispatch.

speeding, and refusing to stop for a cop, is not a mere traffic violation any more than resisting arrest is merely exercise. Your opinion of what should and shouldn't count means two things. I'll let you guess what they are.

and, just so you know, speeding in traffic, despite a cop in pursuit, is not a MINOR offense. The More You Know.

it's not about ego. it's about public safety. You are trying to demonize the cop for doing his job. A job meant to keep the public safe from assholes like speeders who think that the world and it's highways revolve around their risky driving. Sorry, your logic needs a helmet.

Ps, your jaded opinion of cops seems to be the core of your disagreement with policy here. I guess that means I should have just ignored you in the first place. Demonizing all cops, and generalizing YOUR opinion of what YOU think most cops are like, is probably why every post that you've offered thus far is so peewee herman farcical.


seriously.

Do you think the cops are always right?

Doesn't matter, they do and they have more guns and men than I do.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

in your example here the crime is robbery and not the prolonged, public risk of speeding. Of course a recorded license plate number of a criminal already gone will prompt the cops looking for him in locations up to, and including his home. How, post a link to a single Chase In Progress where the police decided to just say fuckit.


The cop cannot check and find out if the driver is inebriated, or impaired in some other way. Leaving a speeder who refuses to stop on the road is neglecting the public safety entirely. Your argument here is checked by the PLETHORA of circumstances that cannot be verified by a simple call to dispatch.

speeding, and refusing to stop for a cop, is not a mere traffic violation any more than resisting arrest is merely exercise. Your opinion of what should and shouldn't count means two things. I'll let you guess what they are.

and, just so you know, speeding in traffic, despite a cop in pursuit, is not a MINOR offense. The More You Know.

it's not about ego. it's about public safety. You are trying to demonize the cop for doing his job. A job meant to keep the public safe from assholes like speeders who think that the world and it's highways revolve around their risky driving. Sorry, your logic needs a helmet.

Ps, your jaded opinion of cops seems to be the core of your disagreement with policy here. I guess that means I should have just ignored you in the first place. Demonizing all cops, and generalizing YOUR opinion of what YOU think most cops are like, is probably why every post that you've offered thus far is so peewee herman farcical.


seriously.

Do you think the cops are always right?

Doesn't matter, they do and they have more guns and men than I do.

Immie

 

[George Costanza]

"whose only crime is speeding"?

whatever. the cop doesn't know if, and has the valid concern to find out, if there is a reason said motorist is speeding and he should have given chase. Especially since the speeder didn't pull over when the cop put his lights on. The speeder is responsible for the lives lost and should, at the very least, be charged with aggravated manslaughter. Rationalizing the original crime of speeding, and suggesting the laughable solution of just waiting for the speeder to come home (as if this were mayberry) is just farcical.

No it isn't at all. You would be amazed at the number of robberies I get on the following facts: Robber sticks up the obligatory 7-11, jumps in his car and takes off. 7-11 guy gets his license number. Police are (literally) waiting for the robber when he gets home.

You first argument is a bootstrap - "he's not stopping, I'll chase him, he's speeding faster, I must chase him faster to find out why he's speeing faster." In the usual situation, the cop only knows that the guy committed some type of traffic offense. He can readily check to see if the car is stolen or if there are any outstanding warrants. If negative on both of the latter issues, this leaves only the traffic violation.

Traffic violations, by themselves, should NOT justify initiating a high speed chase if the driver fails to pull over for the red light on the police vehicle.

Unfortunately, the REAL reason cops go in pursuit of relatively minor traffic violators (or ANYONE who refused to stop for them) is all about EGO. Cops go BALLISTIC when someone they feel they should be controlling, refuses to be controlled. Ever notice that? It isn't entirely their fault. That's they way they are trained. When in doubt, yell, bully and frighten the people you are dealing with - that's the only way to get control of a situation.

But a large part of it has to do with the kind of guys who sign up to become cops to begin with. For purposes of this thread (which is not about that narrow issue), let's just say that a large percentage of police officers weren't the kind of guys who were shying away in one corner of the school yard when they were in grammar school. I trust you get the reference here.

in your example here the crime is robbery and not the prolonged, public risk of speeding. Of course a recorded license plate number of a criminal already gone will prompt the cops looking for him in locations up to, and including his home. How, post a link to a single Chase In Progress where the police decided to just say fuckit.

It happens quite often. High speed chases are closely monitored by the station. Many times, the officer is called off the chase. Many times he will make that decision himself. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen often enough. It's my position that high speed chases should be against the law except in certain, very limited circumstances.

The cop cannot check and find out if the driver is inebriated, or impaired in some other way. Leaving a speeder who refuses to stop on the road is neglecting the public safety entirely. Your argument here is checked by the PLETHORA of circumstances that cannot be verified by a simple call to dispatch.

Did it ever occur to you that if the cop stopped chasing the guy, he would stop speeding? Also, speeding is but one of the many different types of traffic violations that can trigger high speed chases. How do expired registration tags endanger the public? Illegally tinted windows? Object hanging from front rear view mirror?

Your logic in this statement is faulty. Using this line of thought, cops should be able to stop anyone, any time, on the theory that there might be something going on with them that cannot be verified by a call to dispatch.

People run for all kinds of reasons - usually they have a warrant out or they have contraband in the car. None of those reasons should justify a high speed chase, in my opinion.

speeding, and refusing to stop for a cop, is not a mere traffic violation any more than resisting arrest is merely exercise. Your opinion of what should and shouldn't count means two things. I'll let you guess what they are.

As I said, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of traffic violations other than speeding. Try not to focus on that one violation as the only type of violation that can trigger a high speed chase when the driver refuses to pull over. Also, there are degrees of speeding. Usually, a speeder is not going all that much over the speed limit - enough to get a ticket, but not enough to be a realistic danger to other drivers or pedestrians.

It's not about ego. it's about public safety. You are trying to demonize the cop for doing his job. A job meant to keep the public safe from assholes like speeders who think that the world and it's highways revolve around their risky driving. Sorry, your logic needs a helmet.

Here, you show how little you know about police. It is about ego - almost all of it. Sorry you don't recognize this plain truth.

Ps, your jaded opinion of cops seems to be the core of your disagreement with policy here. I guess that means I should have just ignored you in the first place. Demonizing all cops, and generalizing YOUR opinion of what YOU think most cops are like, is probably why every post that you've offered thus far is so peewee herman farcical.


seriously.

My feelings about police are part of the basis for the opinion I have expressed on this thread, but certainly not the entire basis. I deal with police officers on a daily basis - I have for decades. I know cops pretty well, both the good and the bad. Believe me, there is a lot of both.

But the issue here is not so much why cops initiate high speed chases as the fact that they DO initiate them and, more importantly, the consequeces that all to often result from their actions in this regard.

It is a simple fact - klling innocent civilians is not worth apprehending a traffic offender.

 

[Immanuel]

The decision needs to be made here as to whether or not to pursue the stop or wait for a safer point in time at which the perp can be apprehended.

Immie

Oh......

I wasn't aware that law inforcement had been issued crystal balls so they could "wait for a safer point in time" to carry out their duties.

One would hope that they have the intelligence to know when the risk outweighs the advantages of pursuing a suspect.

Okay, I realize that we are talking about cops, but... um are there any cops out there reading this?

Immie