High-speed police chases have killed thousands of innocent bystanders

[Rotobeast]

(09-14-2015, 11:22 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I have my own cameras and my own boots...

Those size 8's are not scaring anyone,
buddy !

[Au165]

So I work in this industry (Police Pursuits). I can tell you since this report came out years ago some departments have moved to no pursuit policies (I’d say more still have general pursuit policies). There are a couple problems with no pursuit policies. The first is defining the policy, most no pursuit policies still allow for pursuits for violent felons. The problem is many pursuits are in fact drunk drivers who run a stop sign/red light then see lights and take off. Under many policies those guys can run free and who knows who they kill down the road. To put it in perspective in 2013 alone, 10,000 people died as a result of drunk driving, compared to the 11.5k since 1979 in pursuits. There is a time and place to pursue, a hard and fast rule of not pursuing traffic violations isn’t always a good one.

The next issue is many times, all a no pursuit policy is there for is to pass the buck on liability. Few areas are fully no pursuit, and in most cases the departments know that someone else will get them if they don’t. Some have begun to come on board with using tire deflation devices even with no pursuit policies, which at least gives them a tool to try and end it safely.

As for the “bazooka GPS” it is a company that will go under soon due to a lukewarm reception in the community. The problem is the “Bazooka” is attached to the cruiser and requires you to pursue and get very close to deploy. Even if they took it off the front of the cruiser firing at a car moving 100mph from a stationary position next to the road is almost impossible. As for the “EMP”, people have talked about it for a decade and they are no closer to getting it to work on a portable scale than they were a decade ago.

My take is simple, pursuits are a necessary evil to maintain law and order. Policies should be precise and training should be often and intense.

[GMDino]

(09-14-2015, 11:52 AM)Au165 Wrote: So I work in this industry (Police Pursuits). I can tell you since this report came out years ago some departments have moved to no pursuit policies (I’d say more still have general pursuit policies). There are a couple problems with no pursuit policies. The first is defining the policy, most no pursuit policies still allow for pursuits for violent felons. The problem is many pursuits are in fact drunk drivers who run a stop sign/red light then see lights and take off. Under many policies those guys can run free and who knows who they kill down the road. To put it in perspective in 2013 alone, 10,000 people died as a result of drunk driving, compared to the 11.5k since 1979 in pursuits. There is a time and place to pursue, a hard and fast rule of not pursuing traffic violations isn’t always a good one.

The next issue is many times, all a no pursuit policy is there for is to pass the buck on liability. Few areas are fully no pursuit, and in most cases the departments know that someone else will get them if they don’t. Some have begun to come on board with using tire deflation devices even with no pursuit policies, which at least gives them a tool to try and end it safely.

As for the “bazooka GPS” it is a company that will go under soon due to a lukewarm reception in the community. The problem is the “Bazooka” is attached to the cruiser and requires you to pursue and get very close to deploy. Even if they took it off the front of the cruiser firing at a car moving 100mph from a stationary position next to the road is almost impossible. As for the “EMP”, people have talked about it for a decade and they are no closer to getting it to work on a portable scale than they were a decade ago.

My take is simple, pursuits are a necessary evil to maintain law and order. Policies should be precise and training should be often and intense.

If the assumption is that someone is DUI does it make more sense to have them driving faster due to a chase?  And I ask seriously.  

Is the possibility of a death from the chase greater or less than the possibility of a death from the driver alone?  I don't know if I'm phrasing it correctly here or not.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-14-2015, 11:46 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Those size 8's are not scaring anyone,  
buddy !

When they are on their way towards your ass, heels first, I bet they do.

[Au165]

(09-14-2015, 11:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: If the assumption is that someone is DUI does it make more sense to have them driving faster due to a chase?  And I ask seriously.  

Is the possibility of a death from the chase greater or less than the possibility of a death from the driver alone?  I don't know if I'm phrasing it correctly here or not.

I understand your thoughts on this and honestly the market is split. One thought is you end it as quickly as possible if you are in an area that it makes sense (Not highly populated at the time) to minimize collateral damage. This can be done with a pit maneuver or with Stop Sticks or other tire deflation device.  The other thought is you let them go and catch up later. I am in the group that says end it now, while 380 people a year lost to pursuits is not good, the 10k drunk driving deaths is bad and could be worse if not for many getting stopped before they kill someone.

It comes back to making sure you weigh the risk and reward of each situation. Every situation is different which is why intensive training is needed.

[Rotobeast]

(09-14-2015, 11:56 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: When they are on their way towards your ass, heels first, I bet they do.

Please wear the fishnets that rfaulk spoke of.

[fredtoast]

(09-13-2015, 10:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  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. 

A high speed chase requires an intentional decision to place the lives of others at risk.

Comparing it to going to the bathroom is ridiculous.  But thanks for explaining how police think when they take off on a high speed chase.  

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2015, 11:21 AM)michaelsean Wrote:  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? 

Yes.  People do it all the time.  

I don't think anyone out there would say that it is okay to risk the lives of innocent people in order to apprehend a person who has just failed to meet with his probation officer or failed to pay child support.

Some people think it would be okay, but only because they think it will never be them or a member of their own family who is injured or killed in a police chase.

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2015, 11:52 AM)Au165 Wrote: As for the “bazooka GPS” it is a company that will go under soon due to a lukewarm reception in the community. The problem is the “Bazooka” is attached to the cruiser and requires you to pursue and get very close to deploy. Even if they took it off the front of the cruiser firing at a car moving 100mph from a stationary position next to the road is almost impossible. As for the “EMP”, people have talked about it for a decade and they are no closer to getting it to work on a portable scale than they were a decade ago.

All the police need is a gun that shoot a glob of sticky glue with a tracking chip in it.  That way they can let the car go, but still track exactly where it goes.

[Belsnickel]

I think some people watch too many movies...

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-15-2015, 12:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think some people watch too many movies...

I don't know why they don't just shoot their tires out...or their knees.

[Au165]

(09-15-2015, 12:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: All the police need is a gun that shoot a glob of sticky glue with a tracking chip in it.  That way they can let the car go, but still track exactly where it goes.

It has been tried and has failed, and is currently failing in it's current incarnation. Sounds like an easy solution, but has a lot more issues than one would think.

[fredtoast]

(09-15-2015, 12:38 PM)Au165 Wrote: It has been tried and has failed, and is currently failing in it's current incarnation. Sounds like an easy solution, but has a lot more issues than one would think.

Then they just need to keep working on it.

[Au165]

(09-15-2015, 01:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then they just need to keep working on it.

The idea is flawed in itself, which many people are now starting to see. I'll explain a couple of the issues, so you can start seeing the complexity of the situation.

This tracking device has to be small enough to shoot yet big enough to posses the technology to track the vehicle. While the chip for tracking could be small, the power supply would not be. The issue is some of these pursuits can go on for long periods of time ,and if you have truly committed to not attempting to stop them, then you must assume they can go a full tank of gas before they stop. With that assumption you'd need to be able to power this GPS (Which by the way magically turns on only when fired) for up to 4 hours conservatively.  In order to accomplish this you're talking about a power supply of decent size and weight, think maybe half the size of a triple A battery.

Now we have this tracking device how do we fire it? Its weight creates a challenge as you need enough force to launch it at a speed that we could actually hit a moving car going 70+ MPH, yet not so fast as to smash it into pieces when it hits. Anyone who has ever shot a gun knows it is hard to hit a moving target, now imagine shooting at something  going 100MPH. Compressed air is out as it won't generate the speeds in any sort of mobile setup to be viable, which means we probably have to use some sort of combustion deployment setup. Congrats, you have no just created a bullet. This is where the idea falls apart in most cases ,as once you take the devices weight and the speed at which it would have to travel to hit a moving vehicle into consideration you have basically created bullet. Now imagine you have cops shooting bullets at moving vehicles and think about everything that can go wrong in this scenario.

The current version of this tries to launch larger GPS beacons (overcoming power supply issue) from a car mounted (Over come portable compressed air issue) while pursuing. The thing falls apart in that to deploy you must engage in the pursuit and often times the beacon misses because compressed air can give different results each use, and also because the beacons sometimes don't take based on the contours of various cars. The systems are very expensive and put officers in danger because to deploy they often times have to get much closer than they other wise would in a normal pursuit (minus during a pit maneuver, which is becoming obsolete).

There are many other issues with the "shoot GPS tracker on car" idea but those are just a couple of the issues that make it unlikely to ever be a widely used process. There are some different ideas for preventing, and stopping pursuit,s being worked on but most are still a little ways away.

[Rotobeast]

(09-15-2015, 12:29 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I don't know why they don't just shoot their tires out...or their knees.

Grenades..... yeah.....grenades.
:jk:

(09-15-2015, 01:54 PM)Au165 Wrote: The idea is flawed in itself, which many people are now starting to see. I'll explain a couple of the issues, so you can start seeing the complexity of the situation.

This tracking device has to be small enough to shoot yet big enough to posses the technology to track the vehicle. While the chip for tracking could be small, the power supply would not be. The issue is some of these pursuits can go on for long periods of time ,and if you have truly committed to not attempting to stop them, then you must assume they can go a full tank of gas before they stop. With that assumption you'd need to be able to power this GPS (Which by the way magically turns on only when fired) for up to 4 hours conservatively.  In order to accomplish this you're talking about a power supply of decent size and weight, think maybe half the size of a triple A battery.

Now we have this tracking device how do we fire it? Its weight creates a challenge as you need enough force to launch it at a speed that we could actually hit a moving car going 70+ MPH, yet not so fast as to smash it into pieces when it hits. Anyone who has ever shot a gun knows it is hard to hit a moving target, now imagine shooting at something  going 100MPH. Compressed air is out as it won't generate the speeds in any sort of mobile setup to be viable, which means we probably have to use some sort of combustion deployment setup. Congrats, you have no just created a bullet. This is where the idea falls apart in most cases ,as once you take the devices weight and the speed at which it would have to travel to hit a moving vehicle into consideration you have basically created bullet. Now imagine you have cops shooting bullets at moving vehicles and think about everything that can go wrong in this scenario.

The current version of this tries to launch larger GPS beacons (overcoming power supply issue) from a car mounted (Over come portable compressed air issue) while pursuing. The thing falls apart in that to deploy you must engage in the pursuit and often times the beacon misses because compressed air can give different results each use, and also because the beacons sometimes don't take based on the contours of various cars. The systems are very expensive and put officers in danger because to deploy they often times have to get much closer than they other wise would in a normal pursuit (minus during a pit maneuver, which is becoming obsolete).

There are many other issues with the "shoot GPS tracker on car" idea but those are just a couple of the issues that make it unlikely to ever be a widely used process. There are some different ideas for preventing, and stopping pursuit,s being worked on but most are still a little ways away.

What ever happened with the EMP device that was tethered to the pursuit vehicle and shot out to go under the perpetrator's vehicle ?
I'm sure road conditions would have to be perfect for it to work, but I hadn't heard anything on it for a while.
 

[Au165]

(09-15-2015, 02:54 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Grenades..... yeah.....grenades.
:jk:

What ever happened with the EMP device that was tethered to the pursuit vehicle and shot out to go under the perpetrator's vehicle ?
I'm sure road conditions would have to be perfect for it to work, but I hadn't heard anything on it for a while.
 

I have never heard of this one, my guess is it never made it to production, only a hype article trying to gain interest. One of the issues here in my eyes is the same with the previously mentioned GPS system, you have to engage in the chase to get close enough to deploy. The other issue here is anytime you tether something to a vehicle it become a dangerous object that can cause collateral damage (think ball and chain).

Many companies have tried the EMP route no one has succeeded and in my opinion EMP is going to have a hard time getting approved for use in the United States. The problem with EMP blasts even in small chunks is they can take out other systems like power steering, air bags, and even some of the new drive by wire cars that things such as breaking cold be effected. One of the biggest issues with developing technology for the LE industry is exposing the department to liability. Departments are now more worried about getting sued then stopping bad guys.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-15-2015, 12:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  People do it all the time.  

I don't think anyone out there would say that it is okay to risk the lives of innocent people in order to apprehend a person who has just failed to meet with his probation officer or failed to pay child support.

Some people think it would be okay, but only because they think it will never be them or a member of their own family who is injured or killed in a police chase.

If they stop chasing then won't it just become a thing to never stop for the police?

[*bfine32*]

(09-15-2015, 12:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Some people think it would be okay, but only because they think it will never be them or a member of their own family who is injured or killed in a police chase.

..and some will think it's not okay, but only because they think it will never be then or a member of their own family who is assaulted or killed by the criminal that fled. 

[fredtoast]

(09-15-2015, 04:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If they stop chasing then won't it just become a thing to never stop for the police?

There are lots of ways to arrest people other than after a high speed chase.  In fact, only a very small percentage of arrests take place after a high speed chase.

Police are not allowed to shoot fleeing non-violent criminals, but that does not mean that every non-violent criminal escapes justice.

[fredtoast]

(09-15-2015, 04:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and some will think it's not okay, but only because they think it will never be then or a member of their own family who is assaulted or killed by the criminal that fled. 

Except I have said the chases are justified with any perpetrator who was a threat to commit violence.