High-speed police chases have killed thousands of innocent bystanders

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2015, 02:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: And....is it worth chasing the guy with the broken taillight?  You have their plate number, its at best a warning to get it fixed (unless you didn't make your quote yet) so do you suddenly create a dangerous situation or do you note it and send a letter?

You do realize that Ted Bundy was caught after being pulled over for a routine traffic violation, so by your logic he could still be a free man killing women.?

As others have tried to explain and and it has fallen on deaf ears. The chase is not because of the broken taillight, it is because the person flees. 

[GMDino]

(09-13-2015, 02:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You do realize that Ted Bundy was caught after being pulled over for a routine traffic violation, so by your logic he could still be a free man killing women.?

As others have tried to explain and and it has fallen on deaf ears. The chase is not because of the broken taillight, it is because the person flees. 

You didn't read how many innocent people were killed in or as a result of high speed chases, did you?

Wouldn't Bundy be the exception rather than the rule?  Or did I say to never chase anyone?  Bundy turned off his lights and sped through stop signs.  Maybe that's slightly more suspicious that having a burned out headlight.

Wait...I forgot...you want to make one small point and then focus on that rather than anything else that is said and then complain we are talking about YOU rather than the topic.  

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2015, 02:22 PM)GMDino Wrote:

You didn't read how many innocent people were killed in or as a result of high speed chases, did you?

Wouldn't Bundy be the exception rather than the rule?  Or did I say to never chase anyone?  Bundy turned off his lights and sped through stop signs.  Maybe that's slightly more suspicious that having a burned out headlight.

  

So LEOs should only chase those that commit routine traffic violations if they are mass murderers? How do you suggest they determine this prior to giving chase? 

GMDino Wrote:
Wait...I forgot...you want to make one small point and then focus on that rather than anything else that is said and then complain we are talking about YOU rather than the topic.

Isn't that exactly what you just did?

FWIW, it is the same point that others have been making throughout this thread. 

[fredtoast]

People are making this too complicated.

The only time a high speed chase is justified is if the person fleeing is a danger to hurt or injure someone. It is not worth getting some one killed in order to catch a non-violent criminal.

A few non-violent criminals will escape justice (at least for a while), but that does not matter when weighed against the lives of innocent people.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-13-2015, 02:08 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do you think for a split second I thought you'd ever agree that anything the police do, even if its chasing a guy who may or may not have misused his turn signal, at a high speed, resulting in the death of someone?

This sentence does not make sense, please try again.

Quote:The one point I brought up (that you think is useless) was: "hoping that the guy with the broken tail-light is also a heroin dealer so they chase him at high speeds doesn't seen like a good risk / reward ratio to me."  And yet you said in your own response they have no way to know so they better chase just in case.

Bullshit, it's not "hoping" anything, it's attempting to apprehend someone who is actively fleeing law enforcement contact.  Usually , the reason for this person fleeing is worth their apprehension.  You're alos missing the insane contradiction in your argument; that being that if law enforcement in endangering innocent lives in these pursuits then the person fleeing is doing so also.  This, by definition, makes them a danger to the lives and well being of others which would justify their apprehension.  Uh oh, your own inane argument eats itself.

Quote:You think high speed chases are good and necessary.  No big surprise there.  I wonder if there's some way to limit them and avoid killing innocent people because of them.  So naturally you are against it.

Seriously, spare me your half assed sarcasm.  You're advocating for anyone who flees the police in a vehicle to be allowed to flee simply because a chase puts others at risk.  Own this point like a man instead of tap dancing around the point with childish sarcasm.

Quote:Read the article rather than just jumping on the "you hate cops" meme.

Read it before I commented, doesn't change a single point I made.  Of course you knew that or you'd have cited points that stated otherwise.

(09-13-2015, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: People are making this too complicated.

The only time a high speed chase is justified is if the person fleeing is a danger to hurt or injure someone.  It is not worth getting some one killed in order to catch a non-violent criminal.

A few non-violent criminals will escape justice (at least for a while), but that does not matter when weighed against the lives of innocent people.

This presumes the police have some sort of prescience that allows them to determine whether the person fleeing is a wanted felon or just some asshole with a suspended license.  Or are you advocating for every high speed pursuit to be canceled unless the fleeing person is absolutely known to be a violent criminal?

[GMDino]

(09-13-2015, 04:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This sentence does not make sense, please try again.

Correct...its should have ended with "that you would see any problem with it."

(09-13-2015, 04:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bullshit, it's not "hoping" anything, it's attempting to apprehend someone who is actively fleeing law enforcement contact.  Usually , the reason for this person fleeing is worth their apprehension.  You're alos missing the insane contradiction in your argument; that being that if law enforcement in endangering innocent lives in these pursuits then the person fleeing is doing so also.  This, by definition, makes them a danger to the lives and well being of others which would justify their apprehension.  Uh oh, your own inane argument eats itself.

Remember this point later.

(09-13-2015, 04:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seriously, spare me your half assed sarcasm.  You're advocating for anyone who flees the police in a vehicle to be allowed to flee simply because a chase puts others at risk.  Own this point like a man instead of tap dancing around the point with childish sarcasm.

If it was sarcasm I'd have made a point to say so. Its the truth. *I* think its a poor risk / reward ratio. *you* think its worth the risk because...fleeing.

(09-13-2015, 04:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Read it before I commented, doesn't change a single point I made.  Of course you knew that or you'd have cited points that stated otherwise.

And yet somehow you made no point about the article just accused me of hating cops...again. Yet you had no point of discussion about the loss of life (including bystanders). Color me stunned. (hint: that's sarcasm)

(09-13-2015, 04:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This presumes the police have some sort of prescience that allows them to determine whether the person fleeing is a wanted felon or just some asshole with a suspended license.  Or are you advocating for every high speed pursuit to be canceled unless the fleeing person is absolutely known to be a violent criminal?

Nope. I don't think they can decide that (neither can you above). I think you just have a kneejerk reaction to ANY even slightly anti-office post...including one that wasn't even so much anti-officer as asking the question about their tactics.

I'll now patiently wait for you tell me how I am making things up and I hate the police now.

[GMDino]

(09-13-2015, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: People are making this too complicated.

The only time a high speed chase is justified is if the person fleeing is a danger to hurt or injure someone.  It is not worth getting some one killed in order to catch a non-violent criminal.

A few non-violent criminals will escape justice (at least for a while), but that does not matter when weighed against the lives of innocent people.

This...this...this.

A thousand times this!

The question is what is the risk / reward to such actions and what policy decides when and where to conduct the chases.  Is the warning or small ticket for a "routine" stop worth possible killing someone?

Not: "Screw the police they're killing people!!!"

[JustWinBaby]

(09-13-2015, 05:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: The question is what is the risk / reward to such actions and what policy decides when and where to conduct the chases.  Is the warning or small ticket for a "routine" stop worth possible killing someone?

People don't flee the cops at excessive speeds because they have a broken tail light or rolled a stop sign.  And SSF is exactly right that people can't be allowed to just ignore an order to pull over and get away by speeding off.

To even consider not pursuing, the fines and jail time for fleeing would have to be severe, and I'd bet severe enough for you and many others to have issues with it.

I mean, let's stop cops from pursuing fleeing vehicles.  Let's take guns away from cops.  I'm sure that is going to make all of us safer.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-13-2015, 05:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Correct...its should have ended with "that you would see any problem with it."

Which, of course, completely ignores all the times I've pointed out that LEO's have made mistakes or need better training.  However, those posts don't fit your agenda and are thus ignored.

Quote:Remember this point later.

I'll remember it because I made it and I'm consistent.

Quote:If it was sarcasm I'd have made a point to say so.  Its the truth.  *I* think its a poor risk / reward ratio.  *you* think its worth the risk because...fleeing.

Yup, I have logic on my side, you have a statistically insignificant number of injuries.  You'd prefer that any criminal could evade arrest simply by driving fast, yet, like a complete fem, you refuse to acknowledge this.

Quote:And yet somehow you made no point about the article just accused me of hating cops...again.  Yet you had no point of discussion about the loss of life (including bystanders).  Color me stunned.  (hint: that's sarcasm)

You do hate cops, your every post screams it.  Either that, or, you have such an insanely insipid view of how the job plays out in real life circumstances that your views on this subject are worse than useless.  Quite simply, this entire thread is moronic and simply having Fred on your side doesn't change this.

Quote:Nope.  I don't think they can decide that (neither can you above).  I think you just have a kneejerk reaction to ANY even slightly anti-office post...including one that wasn't even so much anti-officer as asking the question about their tactics.

Actually I can, seeing as I have close to twenty years of experience in the field and you have absolutely none.  As to your second "point" you're not fooling anyone.

Quote:I'll now patiently wait for you tell me how I am making things up and I hate the police now.

You're not making things up, you're just not making any solid, or intelligent, points.

[Rotobeast]

(09-13-2015, 02:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: And....is it worth chasing the guy with the broken taillight?  You have their plate number, its at best a warning to get it fixed (unless you didn't make your quote yet) so do you suddenly create a dangerous situation or do you note it and send a letter?

You know, you're right.
You've changed my mind on this whole deal.
There are FAR too many innocent lives at stake.
Therefore, the officer should give only long enough chase as to be able to shoot the person that decided to take off and nullify the threat.
I trust the officers enough to choose an area with the least amount of collateral damage.

[GMDino]

(09-13-2015, 06:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually I can, seeing as I have close to twenty years of experience in the field and you have absolutely none.  As to your second "point" you're not fooling anyone.



You're not making things up, you're just not making any solid, or intelligent, points.

You're so blind and so sure. 

[fredtoast]

(09-13-2015, 04:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   Or are you advocating for every high speed pursuit to be canceled unless the fleeing person is absolutely known to be a violent criminal?

I am saying that a high speed chase should be treated the same as using deadly force,

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-13-2015, 09:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am saying that a high speed chase should be treated the same as using deadly force,

A ridiculous comparison counselor.  Using deadly force specifically describes the intent to kill.  A high speed chase in no way implies the same intention any more than using the restroom in your home implies an intention to injure yourself.  You and gmdino are willing passengers on the false equivalency and hyperbole express.

[GMDino]

(09-13-2015, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A ridiculous comparison counselor.  Using deadly force specifically describes the intent to kill.  A high speed chase in no way implies the same intention any more than using the restroom in your home implies an intention to injure yourself.  You and gmdino are willing passengers on the false equivalency and hyperbole express.

Heaven forbid the police ever be questioned.

Wait, wait..I know...you have questioned them before so you can't be someone who "never" question their methods.  Got it.

[Blutarsky]

(09-13-2015, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The only time a high speed chase is justified is if the person fleeing is a danger to hurt or injure someone.

 Irony?  It sounds funny nevertheless.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-13-2015, 11:42 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: They chase because they run, not because of an initial infraction  like a taillight.

You all know what is going to happen with everyone continuing to complain about cops, right ?
There will be cameras EVERYWHERE and they will break down your door, after getting video on you.
You think there's a revenue stream now.....lol

What are they going to get video of me doing that would warrant kicking my door down?  Better question.  What are you currently* doing that you are worried about them getting video of you doing that would warrant then kicking your door in?

* by currently I mean within a recent time period not specifically to this very moment.  I'm well versed in the hair splitting people like to do here

[Rotobeast]

(09-14-2015, 10:21 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: What are they going to get video of me doing that would warrant kicking my door down?  Better question.  What are you currently* doing that you are worried about them getting video of you doing that would warrant then kicking your door in?

* by currently I mean within a recent time period not specifically to this very moment.  I'm well versed in the hair splitting people like to do here

I was fertilizing your shrubs.


I know what you were getting at.
I put the cart before the horse.
I meant to imply they'd kick the door in after a series of traffic violations caught on video, as a lot of people ignore the mailed tickets.
Almost everyone speeds & pushes it at red lights.
I'm sure I'd accrue enough to warrant a door boot .

Now..... check your bushes.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-13-2015, 11:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yes.  Those POS criminals who went through a traffic light a second late...or didn't use their turn signal correctly.

We must hunt them down!

And if a few innocent people get killed?  Well, that the price of doing business, ain't it?



Maybe if the police force wasn't being used as a revenue stream (as is seen by a lot of citizens) but rather an actual force looking out for our good people wouldn't fear them enough to run?

Of course there will always be those who run...but hoping that the guy witht he broken tail-light is also a heroin dealer so they chase him at high speeds doesn't seen like a good risk / reward ratio to me.

Like mentioned, they aren't being chased for a broken taillight, they are being chased because they decided to speed off.  Who takes off because they are being pulled over for a tail light or speeding? 

I'm not saying there isn't anything that should be done.  If you get the license plate etc, maybe you can let it go and get them later, but I still come back to fleeing the police for a minor offense, and who would do that?  Do people run because of minor secondary crimes like a joint in the car? 

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-14-2015, 10:57 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I was fertilizing your shrubs.

I have my own cameras and my own boots...

[GMDino]

(09-14-2015, 11:21 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Like mentioned, they aren't being chased for a broken taillight, they are being chased because they decided to speed off.  Who takes off because they are being pulled over for a tail light or speeding? 

I'm not saying there isn't anything that should be done.  If you get the license plate etc, maybe you can let it go and get them later, but I still come back to fleeing the police for a minor offense, and who would do that?  Do people run because of minor secondary crimes like a joint in the car? 

I bolded the point I think is important.

You DON'T know...but is it worth the risk?  That's the question I have.