Should Fleeing Motorcylists in High-Speed Chases Be Shot By Police ?

[protectionist]

You're not talking about motorcylists or endangered motorists now. You're just attacking me. Over and over. That's trolling. which you could be banned for doing. It's also stalking. Which you can be arrested for. And if those cops come and get you, (IN YOUR DERANGED MIND), they might shoot you. Right ? Isn't that what you think, SJ ? Right ? Right ?

Next troll from you gets reported.

Put on your big boy pants if you're going to hang out here.

Hey, be careful what you say, he's liable to call the cops on you for upsetting him. I put him on ignore where he belongs.

To keep you from having your ass handed to you some more (or al least knowing about it)

 

[protectionist]

I'll just put him in negative rep territory.

Yeah ? And why would that be ? (If you're not a speeding, reckless motorcyclist)

 

[protectionist]

To answer the question of the OP title, perhaps we should evaluate the cost/benefit analysis of it. If cops don't shoot the jerk, rampaging through traffic at 100 MPH (or even at much lesser speeds), then a number of motorists might get killed, or badly injured. At some points in a high speed chase, the motorcylist may have full control of his vehicle (as on straightaways where traffic is absent). But as soon as he gets into traffic, everyone there is at huge risk.

Question is why ? Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ? Shouldn't we take action to protect the public, and if the motorcycle criminal fool dies, from being shot, wouldn't that cop who shot him have done us all a favor ? (other than the guy who has to come along and clean up the mess)

I say blast him.

High speed pursuit is always dangerous and is always under the supervision of a trained Sgt. or higher. Decisions on go, no go are made to protect the public. Shooting someone off a high speed bike is the stuff of video games and not something most agencies would consider except under very extraordinary situations. Today, in most urban areas, aircraft is used to follow in pursuit and vehicles on the ground follow at a safe distance and speed.

Area agencies know the bike or car will eventually run out of gas, crash or be picked up by next jurisdiction; trying to out run LE usually ends badly for the fools who attempt it.

I never seen video of a bike going 100 MPH after it hit a spike strip, though I know I wouldn't want to be on the bike when that happened.

Actually, a smart rider on a sportbike will usually get away in this area. By the time the first cop calls for and gets any help, the dude has stashed the bike someplace.

Who are you ? The president of Crime, Incorporated ? You talk like you'd like him to get away.

 

[protectionist]

Death penalty for speeding?

Seams a bit excessive.Road spikes were invented for a reason.

NO. Death Penalty for endangering multiple people with DEATH.

 

[protectionist]

To answer the question of the OP title, perhaps we should evaluate the cost/benefit analysis of it. If cops don't shoot the jerk, rampaging through traffic at 100 MPH (or even at much lesser speeds), then a number of motorists might get killed, or badly injured. At some points in a high speed chase, the motorcylist may have full control of his vehicle (as on straightaways where traffic is absent). But as soon as he gets into traffic, everyone there is at huge risk.

Question is why ? Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ? Shouldn't we take action to protect the public, and if the motorcycle criminal fool dies, from being shot, wouldn't that cop who shot him have done us all a favor ? (other than the guy who has to come along and clean up the mess)

I say blast him.

Does a motorcycle impacting a car do that much damage? I've been hit by an idiot on a crotch-rocket running a red light. It did damage to my vehicle, but I was never in danger.

And if you think shooting from a moving car at a motorcycle is easy, you have been watching too many bad movies. The shots fired are FAR more dangerous than the biker.

1. It isn't necessarily about a motorcycle hitting a car. Did you watch the video ? The cop couldn have been killed, and the motorcycle never touched him.. Often motorcyles weave around cars which then hit each other, or a tree, lamppost, etc.

2. As was stated in the OP >> "Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?"

3. Helps to come into a thread PREPARED (by having seen the OP and its link/video)

There WAS this video originally.

 

[S.J.]

Put on your big boy pants if you're going to hang out here.

Hey, be careful what you say, he's liable to call the cops on you for upsetting him. I put him on ignore where he belongs.

To keep you from having your ass handed to you some more (or al least knowing about it)

Hey fuckface, you're delusional if you think you handed me my ass. I put you on ignore because you're too fucking immature to be able to handle an opposing opinion. But since you mistook that for a victory, bring it on, fucker. I doubt if you can be adult enough to debate this without running to the mods but if you think you can, make your best case for murdering motorcyclists because they were speeding. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

 

[protectionist]

Hey, be careful what you say, he's liable to call the cops on you for upsetting him. I put him on ignore where he belongs.

To keep you from having your ass handed to you some more (or al least knowing about it)

Hey fuckface, you're delusional if you think you handed me my ass. I put you on ignore because you're too fucking immature to be able to handle an opposing opinion. But since you mistook that for a victory, bring it on, fucker. I doubt if you can be adult enough to debate this without running to the mods but if you think you can, make your best case for murdering motorcyclists because they were speeding. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

NO little boy. I'm 68 years old, and you're 11. I talk intelligently, and you use profanity, thinking that makes you stronger. EARTH TO SJ (Stupid Jerk) - it makes you look DUMBER. As for opposing opinions, you don't have one. You just come stomping and drooling around in here, changing my words and thoughts, and thinking that no one's noticing. You could possibly be arrested for stalking, but as far as the part of you making a fool out of yourself, there's no law against that, so if you feel like that's something you have to do, that's up to you. Not my problem.

 

[S.J.]

To keep you from having your ass handed to you some more (or al least knowing about it)

Hey fuckface, you're delusional if you think you handed me my ass. I put you on ignore because you're too fucking immature to be able to handle an opposing opinion. But since you mistook that for a victory, bring it on, fucker. I doubt if you can be adult enough to debate this without running to the mods but if you think you can, make your best case for murdering motorcyclists because they were speeding. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

NO little boy. I'm 68 years old, and you're 11. I talk intelligently, and you use profanity, thinking that makes you stronger. EARTH TO SJ (Stupid Jerk) - it makes you look DUMBER. As for opposing opinions, you don't have one. You just come stomping and drooling around in here, changing my words and thoughts, and thinking that no one's noticing. You could possibly be arrested for stalking, but as far as the part of you making a fool out of yourself, there's no law against that, so if you feel like that's something you have to do, that's up to you. Not my problem.

In other words, you can't make a case for executing motorcyclists for speeding. Ok, call the cops on me for handing you your sorry ass.

 

[Smilebong]

To answer the question of the OP title, perhaps we should evaluate the cost/benefit analysis of it. If cops don't shoot the jerk, rampaging through traffic at 100 MPH (or even at much lesser speeds), then a number of motorists might get killed, or badly injured. At some points in a high speed chase, the motorcylist may have full control of his vehicle (as on straightaways where traffic is absent). But as soon as he gets into traffic, everyone there is at huge risk.

Question is why ? Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ? Shouldn't we take action to protect the public, and if the motorcycle criminal fool dies, from being shot, wouldn't that cop who shot him have done us all a favor ? (other than the guy who has to come along and clean up the mess)

I say blast him.

No, they should not shoot him. Because I guarantee you that not one in 1000 cops can shoot like Jason Bourne.

 

[WinterBorn]

To answer the question of the OP title, perhaps we should evaluate the cost/benefit analysis of it. If cops don't shoot the jerk, rampaging through traffic at 100 MPH (or even at much lesser speeds), then a number of motorists might get killed, or badly injured. At some points in a high speed chase, the motorcylist may have full control of his vehicle (as on straightaways where traffic is absent). But as soon as he gets into traffic, everyone there is at huge risk.

Question is why ? Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ? Shouldn't we take action to protect the public, and if the motorcycle criminal fool dies, from being shot, wouldn't that cop who shot him have done us all a favor ? (other than the guy who has to come along and clean up the mess)

I say blast him.

Does a motorcycle impacting a car do that much damage? I've been hit by an idiot on a crotch-rocket running a red light. It did damage to my vehicle, but I was never in danger.

And if you think shooting from a moving car at a motorcycle is easy, you have been watching too many bad movies. The shots fired are FAR more dangerous than the biker.

1. It isn't necessarily about a motorcycle hitting a car. Did you watch the video ? The cop couldn have been killed, and the motorcycle never touched him.. Often motorcyles weave around cars which then hit each other, or a tree, lamppost, etc.

2. As was stated in the OP >> "Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?"

3. Helps to come into a thread PREPARED (by having seen the OP and its link/video)

There WAS this video originally.

And you think the average patrol cop is capable of reliably hitting a moving target at such ranges? I think the preparation you want should be yours.

The video wasn't there when I first came to the thread. And no, the officers should NOT endanger other lives by pursuing a high speed chase in traffic. On the open road it is better, but their chances of catching a motorcycle without backup or unless the iker wrecks are slim.

 

[George Costanza]

Right up until the time that YOU are in a car that is obliterated by a larger vehicle, in a crash caused by a speeding motorcyclist, which would have been avoided if the loon had been shot off his bike.

Or if the loon in the pursuing police unit decided not to pursue in the first place.

NO, because this is about a hypothetical of a crash caused by a speeding motorcyle.

So there's 2 scenarios >>

1. The speeding, reckless motorcyclist caused a crash, and people get hurt or killed.

2. The cop takes out the speeding, reckless motorcyclist before that crash occurs, thereby preventing those people from getting hurt or killed. Got it ?

You just don't get it, I guess. Let me illustrate: Last week, I did a preliminary hearing involving a CHP, high-speed pursuit of my client, on a motorcycle. When the cop first saw him, my guy was doing 80 on the Pomona Freeway. The speed limit is 65. 80 is certainly deserving of a traffic stop for speeding, but it isn't all that unusual; lots of drivers go 80 on our freeways here.

So the cop falls in behind and lights my client up. My guy took off. There followed a 20-mile, high speed chase where my guy at times was going 130 mph. He was weaving in and out of traffic, cutting other drivers off, etc. in an effort to try to lose the cop.

Do you see the problem here? BUT FOR the pursuit, my guy probably would have continued on at 80 mph and that would have been that. Yes, he could have been involved in an accident, but so could any driver doing 80 out there - and, believe me, there are plenty of them.

But 130 mph? Now THERE's the potentional for some REAL trouble. And it all could have been avoided if the cop had decided to abandon the chase the minute it became apparent that the motorcyclist was not only not going to stop, but was also prepared to really crank it up.

You say it isn't about cop egos. You couldn't be more wrong. Your average cop is a world class authoritarian. He is trained to believe that he should be obeyed without question. And if that isn't enough, the basic cop personality is authoritarian going in - they wouldn't be cops if they weren't built that way from the get go. One of the highest affronts to a cop's ego is someone who refuses to stop for his red light. Drives them NUTS. All they want to do is take out after the fleeing motorist to avenge this assault on their authority.

And, all too often, disaster results. Cops have radios. Cops have air support. Cops have spike strips. Cops have other cops. Cops have roadblocks.

They should use such devices and stop endangering the general public by initiating and continuing high speed chases.

Edit Note: I just read this entire thread. I don't know why I wasted my time with this post except I trust it will be read by rational people here. It would appear the author of this thread is not in that category.

 

[protectionist]

Hey fuckface, you're delusional if you think you handed me my ass. I put you on ignore because you're too fucking immature to be able to handle an opposing opinion. But since you mistook that for a victory, bring it on, fucker. I doubt if you can be adult enough to debate this without running to the mods but if you think you can, make your best case for murdering motorcyclists because they were speeding. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

NO little boy. I'm 68 years old, and you're 11. I talk intelligently, and you use profanity, thinking that makes you stronger. EARTH TO SJ (Stupid Jerk) - it makes you look DUMBER. As for opposing opinions, you don't have one. You just come stomping and drooling around in here, changing my words and thoughts, and thinking that no one's noticing. You could possibly be arrested for stalking, but as far as the part of you making a fool out of yourself, there's no law against that, so if you feel like that's something you have to do, that's up to you. Not my problem.

In other words, you can't make a case for executing motorcyclists for speeding. Ok, call the cops on me for handing you your sorry ass.

Waste of time reading posts like yours that pretend and pretend. No matter how many times you claim victory, you're already buried in this thread, any YOU KNOW it.

 

[protectionist]

To answer the question of the OP title, perhaps we should evaluate the cost/benefit analysis of it. If cops don't shoot the jerk, rampaging through traffic at 100 MPH (or even at much lesser speeds), then a number of motorists might get killed, or badly injured. At some points in a high speed chase, the motorcylist may have full control of his vehicle (as on straightaways where traffic is absent). But as soon as he gets into traffic, everyone there is at huge risk.

Question is why ? Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ? Shouldn't we take action to protect the public, and if the motorcycle criminal fool dies, from being shot, wouldn't that cop who shot him have done us all a favor ? (other than the guy who has to come along and clean up the mess)

I say blast him.

No, they should not shoot him. Because I guarantee you that not one in 1000 cops can shoot like Jason Bourne.

So if they miss, the police dept loses a few bullets. They could survive that.

 

[WinterBorn]

To answer the question of the OP title, perhaps we should evaluate the cost/benefit analysis of it. If cops don't shoot the jerk, rampaging through traffic at 100 MPH (or even at much lesser speeds), then a number of motorists might get killed, or badly injured. At some points in a high speed chase, the motorcylist may have full control of his vehicle (as on straightaways where traffic is absent). But as soon as he gets into traffic, everyone there is at huge risk.

Question is why ? Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ? Shouldn't we take action to protect the public, and if the motorcycle criminal fool dies, from being shot, wouldn't that cop who shot him have done us all a favor ? (other than the guy who has to come along and clean up the mess)

I say blast him.

No, they should not shoot him. Because I guarantee you that not one in 1000 cops can shoot like Jason Bourne.

So if they miss, the police dept loses a few bullets. They could survive that.

Lose a few bullets??

Where do those bullets end up??? Are you really advocating cops open fire on a speeding motorcycle?? And if they miss they just "lose a few bullets"???

And you tried to give me shit about not being prepared. LMAO!! You take the cake.

 

[protectionist]

Does a motorcycle impacting a car do that much damage? I've been hit by an idiot on a crotch-rocket running a red light. It did damage to my vehicle, but I was never in danger.

And if you think shooting from a moving car at a motorcycle is easy, you have been watching too many bad movies. The shots fired are FAR more dangerous than the biker.

1. It isn't necessarily about a motorcycle hitting a car. Did you watch the video ? The cop couldn have been killed, and the motorcycle never touched him.. Often motorcyles weave around cars which then hit each other, or a tree, lamppost, etc.

2. As was stated in the OP >> "Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?"

3. Helps to come into a thread PREPARED (by having seen the OP and its link/video)

There WAS this video originally.

And you think the average patrol cop is capable of reliably hitting a moving target at such ranges? I think the preparation you want should be yours.

The video wasn't there when I first came to the thread. And no, the officers should NOT endanger other lives by pursuing a high speed chase in traffic. On the open road it is better, but their chances of catching a motorcycle without backup or unless the iker wrecks are slim.

1. Yeah, I think the average cop can get close enough to the fool to hit him or his bike, and knock them off the road. If you watch the video you'll see a number of times where they were pretty close to one another. A second cop in the passenger seat could whack him with a shotgun and probably take him out on the first shot. And if he misses, so what ? A few shotgun shells ? No biggee. It's worth it, to save innocent lives. (maybe yours)

2. The thread is not about pursuing a high speed chase in traffic. Please don't change the subject. We have enough to talk about with the topic of the OP.

3. I see no reason why the cop couldn't catch up to a motorcycle, and you haven't shown any. I'll show you reasons why he could.
a. at any point the mc could lose control momentarily and be forced to slow down or even stop. When starting again, the cop could be right behind him.
b. There could be obstructions in the road (broken down vehicle, cows crossing road, construction cones, etc)
c. The mc could encounter a rough road condition, or start raining. etc etc.

 

[protectionist]

No, they should not shoot him. Because I guarantee you that not one in 1000 cops can shoot like Jason Bourne.

So if they miss, the police dept loses a few bullets. They could survive that.

Lose a few bullets??

Where do those bullets end up??? Are you really advocating cops open fire on a speeding motorcycle?? And if they miss they just "lose a few bullets"???

And you tried to give me shit about not being prepared. LMAO!! You take the cake.

Dude! If I have to correct you repeatedly, I'm might have to start calling you DUMMY. You've been told repeatedly now, that we're talking about a very open stretch of road which is unpopulated, and only that. Got it now ?

From the OP and at least a half dozen posts >> "Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ?"

Yeah, looks like I'm giving you shit about not being prepared (and not listening also)

 

[chikenwing]

Hell fucking NO what the hell is wrong with you people.!!!!!!!

You want which is typical of most,an authoritarian make life and death designation about a speeder,

Hint no chase no high speed chasing a kid on a bike over a traffic ticket,and that's what most are,and you want then to gun them down.

You people are some scary fucked up individuals.

 

[protectionist]

Hell fucking NO what the hell is wrong with you people.!!!!!!!

You want which is typical of most,an authoritarian make life and death designation about a speeder,

Hint no chase no high speed chasing a kid on a bike over a traffic ticket,and that's what most are,and you want then to gun them down.

You people are some scary fucked up individuals.

Absolutely OFF TOPIC!! This isn't about a "traffic ticket", and nobody said anything about a "kid"

Learn to READ, before you come bursting into a thread, talking like a fool.

 

[Smilebong]

To answer the question of the OP title, perhaps we should evaluate the cost/benefit analysis of it. If cops don't shoot the jerk, rampaging through traffic at 100 MPH (or even at much lesser speeds), then a number of motorists might get killed, or badly injured. At some points in a high speed chase, the motorcylist may have full control of his vehicle (as on straightaways where traffic is absent). But as soon as he gets into traffic, everyone there is at huge risk.

Question is why ? Why should law abiding drivers have their lives jeopardized, when they could be protected just by having the cops blast this loon right off his vehicle, when the chase encounters an open road, free of traffic ? Shouldn't we take action to protect the public, and if the motorcycle criminal fool dies, from being shot, wouldn't that cop who shot him have done us all a favor ? (other than the guy who has to come along and clean up the mess)

I say blast him.

No, they should not shoot him. Because I guarantee you that not one in 1000 cops can shoot like Jason Bourne.

So if they miss, the police dept loses a few bullets. They could survive that.

Ok, Einstein.

 

[chikenwing]

Hell fucking NO what the hell is wrong with you people.!!!!!!!

You want which is typical of most,an authoritarian make life and death designation about a speeder,

Hint no chase no high speed chasing a kid on a bike over a traffic ticket,and that's what most are,and you want then to gun them down.

You people are some scary fucked up individuals.

Absolutely OFF TOPIC!! This isn't about a "traffic ticket", and nobody said anything about a "kid"

Learn to READ, before you come bursting into a thread, talking like a fool.

What?? off topic?? ya ok