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

[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 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.

I am not "using" Shogun's "farcical" - I am QUOTING him. Hate to say it, old sport, but YOU are the one who isn't making sense here.

But I digress.

I think you invite MORE lawless.

Well, it comes down to a question of trade-off, doesn't it? As I said before - when the cops refuse to chase someone, it doesn't mean the guy gets away. More often than not, they go to his home and arrest him there, assuming they get his license number, which they almost always do.

 

[George Costanza]

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

I would substitute "lack of ego" for "intelligence" here. Intelligence sometimes takes a back seat to raw emotions and adrenelin, both of which get turned up considerably when someone decides to take off on a cop's red light.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

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.

The "authority of the police" is a lot more important to the police ego than it is to me. Police authority should not extend to arbitrarily jeopardizing public safety, which clearly defines the majority of high-speed pursuits.

I'm quite sure you would be expressing a different opinion if someone close to you was injured or killed in a high-speed police pursuit. An offender fleeing in a motor vehicle represents an extreme threat to the public at large. Pursuing that offender when there is not substantial reason to do so significantly increases the threat.

Working to "legalize prostitution or drugs" is one way to eliminate a small percentage of high-speed pursuits, but doing so will take time. In the meantime I think it would be productive to simply reassign all narcs and vice cops, who happen to be the scumbags of law enforcement, to more legitimately protective functions, such as patrolling high-crime neighborhoods, public parks and schools.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

If you are running from the police, how do they know your only offense is speeding? Usually there is a reason for running from the cops, other than speeding......say you are a kidnapped girl in that car, wouldn't you want the cops coming after it?

 

[Againsheila]

[...]

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.

The "authority of the police" is a lot more important to the police ego than it is to me. Police authority should not extend to arbitrarily jeopardizing public safety, which clearly defines the majority of high-speed pursuits.

I'm quite sure you would be expressing a different opinion if someone close to you was injured or killed in a high-speed police pursuit. An offender fleeing in a motor vehicle represents an extreme threat to the public at large. Pursuing that offender when there is not substantial reason to do so significantly increases the threat.

Working to "legalize prostitution or drugs" is one way to eliminate a small percentage of high-speed pursuits, but doing so will take time. In the meantime I think it would be productive to simply reassign all narcs and vice cops, who happen to be the scumbags of law enforcement, to more legitimately protective functions, such as patrolling high-crime neighborhoods, public parks and schools.

For the police to say "We're not going to chase people who run away from us" is like Walmart saying "We're not going to prosecute shoplifters" it encourages bad behavior, it doesn't stop it.

 

[Immanuel]

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

I would substitute "lack of ego" for "intelligence" here. Intelligence sometimes takes a back seat to raw emotions and adrenelin, both of which get turned up considerably when someone decides to take off on a cop's red light.

I would put lack of ego along side intelligence because both play parts in the decision.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the police to say "We're not going to chase people who run away from us" is like Walmart saying "We're not going to prosecute shoplifters" it encourages bad behavior, it doesn't stop it.

Except it doesn't. Every jurisdiction that has a limiter pursuit policy in place has seen a reduction in deaths and injuries as a result of those deaths, and a lower crime rate. If your contention were correct there would be an increase in rates of crimes.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

For the police to say "We're not going to chase people who run away from us" is like Walmart saying "We're not going to prosecute shoplifters" it encourages bad behavior, it doesn't stop it.

Shoplifters are typically arrested within ten feet of a WalMart exit door, so if WalMart said it would not encourage high-speed automobile pursuits of shoplifters I don't think it would encourage or discourage anything. So your analogy is fatally flawed.

I think the best and only way to deal with the high-speed pursuit problem is to establish a set of conditions under which such pursuits may take place and to attach a severe penalty, five years in prison with no parole possibility, for example, for high speed evasion. I'm sure that would discourage most who might otherwise be inclined to keep going.

I don't know if you ever have personally been exposed to the hazard of a high-speed police pursuit but I have and it was a frightening experience. I was nearly hit by a fleeing car that passed me on the right as I was about to make a right turn at a stop sign and it scared the hell out of me. Another foot or so and that S.O.B. would have hit me.

I have no idea what the pursuit was about. If the fleeing driver was a serial child molester or some extreme threat to society I'll say the pursuit was justified. But if it involved some bullshit drug offense, a traffic violation, stolen car or some other minor or moderate offense, then it did not call for jeopardizing public safety.

 

[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.

If you are running from the police, how do they know your only offense is speeding? Usually there is a reason for running from the cops, other than speeding......say you are a kidnapped girl in that car, wouldn't you want the cops coming after it?

Most of the time there is something else involved besides the traffic violation. Usually, the suspect has contraband in the car, knows he has a warrant, is on probation or parole, etc.

As in all aspects of police apprehension, you don't stop (or chase) someone because of something you know nothing about and may only suspect. If the cops KNOW there is good reason to engage in a high speed pursuit, that's one thing. Most of the time, however, all they know is the guy committed some minor traffic offense and he isn't pulling over.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

There are TWO decisions involved in a high speed chase - the cop's and the suspect's. Before there can ever be a high speed chase, there has to be a decision by the cop to commence it. Sure, the suspect has to flee, but the cop does not have to chase him. If the cop decides not to chase, the suspect is not going to flee as fast. Once he sees the cop backing off, he will still get out of there, but you won't see him endangering others the same way he would if he were being chased.

 

[Zander]

Just like it was the suspects fault when the cops broke into the wrong house and killed a little girl.

Are you that easily distracted? Can you stay on topic for 2 consecutive posts?

You choose to interpret the topic of being only about police chasing a speeder, I view it as being about the attitude that leads that cop to chase someone who has essentially done nothing criminal. Which of us really understands the OP and the topic of the thread better?

Why arrest people for drunk driving unless they are involved in an accident?

 

[MikeK]

[...]
If you are running from the police, how do they know your only offense is speeding? Usually there is a reason for running from the cops, other than speeding......say you are a kidnapped girl in that car, wouldn't you want the cops coming after it?

A kidnaped girl in a car is cause for pursuit. But once it becomes obvious that the kidnapper has decided to either escape or die and accelerates to 100mph, ignoring red lights and stop signs, putting yourself in the kidnapped girl's position, what would your choice be?

I believe there is a point at which common sense must prevail and circumstances must be weighed.

 

[MikeK]

I sometimes watch the tv documentary, COPS, and it occurs to me now that it's rare when there isn't at least one high-speed pursuit in a half-hour program. I'm recalling that these pursuits typically end up with someone being arrested for some minor drug possession, DUI or some other offense that did not justify the potential consequences of chasing through public streets and thoroughfare at high speeds.

Better the officer ceases pursuit and uses his radio. If they have the plate number and description it's possible to make an arrest on the strength of that information. And if not, so what? In the vast majority of instances these pursuits end up with property damage and some insignificant criminal charges.

The impression I have is most of these pursuits are unnecessary and occur as a kind of testosterone-driven competition rather than an essential law-enforcement exercise.

 

[strollingbones]

lets take this scenario.......car speeds by cop...cop takes plate and calls it in...but doesnt engage in a high speed chase......speeding car runs light at intersection...wipes out a family in another car....

now the cop is being condemned to doing nothing....

no win/win here

 

[Zona]

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.

You cant outrun a police radio.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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.

i agree with you here George....we here in S.Cal,see this type of stuff way to often.....there is ten patrol cars chasing the guy, a helicopter above.....and they got the plates....and so often he ends up going back to his neighborhood....just let the Copter follow the guy keeping the cops on the ground informed of his whereabouts....he has to stop sooner or later.....

 

[Samson]

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.

You cant outrun a police radio.

Very profound.

I wonder why police even need cars?.... Maybe we should have them walking around with radios!

 

[Samson]

Well, it comes down to a question of trade-off, doesn't it? As I said before - when the cops refuse to chase someone, it doesn't mean the guy gets away. More often than not, they go to his home and arrest him there, assuming they get his license number, which they almost always do.

Really? You mean the typical guy runs from the cops, not with the intent to get away, but because he really wants to get home to watch Dancing With The Stars and eat Chicken Nuggets?

Gee that never ever ocurred to me.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?

Frank most of the chases out here are paroles who dont want to be stopped for the obvious reason.....some are working on their 3rd strike..and probably have something in the car which will send them back...so i gotta run....or the morons who dont have anything in the car,but are being pulled over for a simple ticket,but think on no 3rd strike!....so they run....and that act of running will no doubt become the 3rd strike....i have seen a good 50 chases over the last few years on the news....NEVER has anyone been in the trunk....

 

[Dr Grump]

It's the fault of the person doing the running...