High-speed police chases have killed thousands of innocent bystanders

[StLucieBengal]

(09-15-2015, 04:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

Fair enough.

[*bfine32*]

(09-15-2015, 04:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except I have said the chases are justified with any perpetrator who was a threat to commit violence.

..and I say chases that end with no innocent person getting killed are justified. 

The unfortunate thing is you or I cannot satisfy the condition we want many times until after the chase. 

[fredtoast]

(09-15-2015, 04:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and I say chases that end with no innocent person getting killed are justified. 

The unfortunate thing is you or I cannot satisfy the condition we want many times until after the chase. 

If you don't know then you don't take the risk.

You don't risk killing someone on the chance that it might be a violent felon.

[Au165]

(09-15-2015, 04:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

While it may be a small percentage of the total arrests made every year, I would say the amount of high speed pursuits in a given year that lead to arrests are far more than you think. I'd also say that far more are because of violent criminals, or DUI suspects ,than people would believe. Only a small portion are for non violent, or potentially non dangerous criminals.

Pursuits are dangerous, but the general public has to weigh the alternatives. You can't demand they not pursue, then get pissed when someone steals your car or robs your house and the only things the police can do is watch it on TV and wait until it's over. It is a tough spot for many police agencies because the thoughts on it are so divided.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(09-13-2015, 11:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: Your question begs this question:  Would those people drive at high speeds if the cops weren't trying to pull them over for failure to use a turn signal?  Or a headlight out? Or any other of the myriad of minor offense that resulted in people getting killed due to a high speed chase?

You're focusing on the chase.  I'm curious about the rules an regulations for the chase.  Is it worth it to kill 600 people a year?  Is it worth it to kill one person a year?

Over a expired tag?

Or are the police using such minor infractions as "reasonable cause" to search people and hope they get luck and find something more?

So....should cops just avoid pulling people over altogether?  Are you saying that you should not be pulled over for minor violations because the offender is a potential risk to flee?

[GMDino]

(09-16-2015, 06:46 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: So....should cops just avoid pulling people over altogether?  Are you saying that you should not be pulled over for minor violations because the offender is a potential risk to flee?

Actually I'm asking the opposite:  If you pull someone over for something minor, that you may be only issuing a warning for anyway is it worth it to follow in a high speed chase if they flee?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-16-2015, 09:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Actually I'm asking the opposite:  If you pull someone over for something minor, that you may be only issuing a warning for anyway is it worth it to follow in a high speed chase if they flee?  

Yes, because they are very likely to be fleeing for a reason you'd want them caught.

[GMDino]

(09-16-2015, 10:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, because they are very likely to be fleeing for a reason you'd want them caught.

At risk of killing them or an innocent bystander?  

I'm not sure that's always the best idea.

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2015, 10:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: At risk of killing them or an innocent bystander?  

I'm not sure that's always the best idea.

How often do you think someone runs when they don't have another, more serious offense, that they are concerned about being arrested for? My guess would be less than 2%. Even if the number is as high as 25% the numbers are on the side of the chase. The knowledge that police will give chase and making them do so will result in stiffer penalties is probably a deterrent for many to not act like a jackass and take off. Take away that and you will see an increase of people speeding away, which would mean a higher frequency of speeding vehicles evading the police.

[GMDino]

(09-16-2015, 10:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: How often do you think someone runs when they don't have another, more serious offense, that they are concerned about being arrested for? My guess would be less than 2%. Even if the number is as high as 25% the numbers are on the side of the chase. The knowledge that police will give chase and making them do so will result in stiffer penalties is probably a deterrent for many to not act like a jackass and take off. Take away that and you will see an increase of people speeding away, which would mean a higher frequency of speeding vehicles evading the police.

I suggest only that you read the article in the first post.

My question is not: Should we let potentially bad people free?  But rather was is the risk / reward of the situation.  Someone willing to run from the police and risk a high speed chase may ALSO be willing to do other things like take hostages or shoot at the officers, whatever.  If you have the plate and you know the vehicle are the other ways to follow up and capture said "criminal".

Quote:Few drivers fleeing police are wanted felons, according to statistics and research. Most committed minor offenses and "made very bad decisions to flee," a 2008 paper by thePolice Foundation said.


In Pennsylvania, records of 32,000 chases since 1997 show that the most common charge against fleeing drivers was theft, including stealing or illegally possessing the car they were driving. The other most-frequent charges were resisting arrest, underage drinking and misdemeanor assault.

A Justice Department-funded 1998 study found after interviewing fleeing drivers that 32% drove off because they were in a stolen car, 27% because they had a suspended driver's license, 27% wanted to avoid arrest and 21% because they were driving drunk.

"Overwhelmingly, someone is fleeing because they've got a minor warrant, their car isn't insured, they've had too much to drink," said Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn, who sharply restricted his department's pursuits in 2010 after four bystanders were killed in a three-month span.
For more serious offenses such as stealing a vehicle, "the sanctions imposed by courts nationwide for merely stealing a car don't justify anybody taking any risk," Flynn said.

On June 15, 2012, at 3:20 p.m., Austin, Texas, police chased a driver in a stolen pickup truck at 90 to 95 mph onto a highway and along a frontage road lined with service stations and fast-food restaurants. At an intersection, the truck slammed into a Mitsubishi driven by James Williford, 32, killing him instantly.

Driver Reynaldo Hernandez was convicted of murdering Williford and sentenced to 55 years. The Austin police chief cleared the two officers, saying they followed the policy of the department, which had been cracking down on auto thefts.


Esther Seoanes lost her best friend, her husband James Williford in 2012 by a fleeing driver being chased by the Austin Police Department. She is now involved with Pursuit Safety a group advocating for changes in police pursuit policies.(USA NEWS, USA TODAY)

Williford's widow Esther Seoanes holds the officers responsible for deciding to chase a stolen car.

"My husband," Seoanes said, "was essentially killed for a stolen vehicle."

"The moment the officer crossed over the median with lights and sirens and started the pursuit, he (Hernandez) immediately turned into one of those criminals and suspects who doesn't care about anything," said Seoanes, executive director of PursuitSAFETY, a nonprofit seeking to reduce chase-related deaths. "Drivers, they don't care about anyone's safety, and so the burden falls on the police to protect the public."

[Belsnickel]

(09-16-2015, 10:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: I suggest only that you read the article in the first post.

My question is not: Should we let potentially bad people free?  But rather was is the risk / reward of the situation.  Someone willing to run from the police and risk a high speed chase may ALSO be willing to do other things like take hostages or shoot at the officers, whatever.  If you have the plate and you know the vehicle are the other ways to follow up and capture said "criminal".

So, people are running because they have done something else beyond what would be a minor traffic violation. Seems to be what I was thinking. Not sure why you're putting quotation marks around criminal since it seems most of them are. Doesn't really dispute what I was saying.

I don't know enough about LE statistics to know what the effectiveness is of finding them after they get away and what not, though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-16-2015, 10:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: I suggest only that you read the article in the first post.

My question is not: Should we let potentially bad people free?  But rather was is the risk / reward of the situation.

So police pursued a fleeing felon who subsequently crashed into, and killed, a civilian and it's the fault of the police?

Quote: Someone willing to run from the police and risk a high speed chase may ALSO be willing to do other things like take hostages or shoot at the officers, whatever.

Excellent point, a criminal willing to take hostages or shoot at the police is exactly who we should be letting go.


 

Quote:If you have the plate and you know the vehicle are the other ways to follow up and capture said "criminal".

  This last sentence is so insanely naive as to laughable.

[GMDino]

(09-17-2015, 12:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So police pursued a fleeing felon who subsequently crashed into, and killed, a civilian and it's the fault of the police?




Excellent point, a criminal willing to take hostages or shoot at the police is exactly who we should be letting go.


 

  This last sentence is so insanely naive as to laughable.

1) If there is no chase, there is no accident.

2) Was based on things they might do to get away from the police while being chased.  Why would escalating the situation be any better for the police to do than the "suspect".

3) Oh, I forgot, you don't think the police are looking for more when they da routine stop.  Guilty until proven innocent?  If you have a burned out taillight yu might be Ted Bundy. 

[GMDino]

(09-16-2015, 11:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, people are running because they have done something else beyond what would be a minor traffic violation. Seems to be what I was thinking. Not sure why you're putting quotation marks around criminal since it seems most of them are. Doesn't really dispute what I was saying.

I don't know enough about LE statistics to know what the effectiveness is of finding them after they get away and what not, though.

And of the items listed which is worth causing a dangerous chase situation over?  If a warrant is THAT important put more effort and money into serving them.  Same with a past ticket.  As to DUI besides it being an arbitrary blood level number that get lowered and lowered how could scaring the driver into driving faster help?  

Again, I have never said "never chase" I asked if the policies about starting a chase are adequate compared to the risk  reward.  But since the online cops want to have an all or nothing scenario and think that anyone who questions policy is a cop hater its hard to have that conversation.

[Au165]

(09-17-2015, 07:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: And of the items listed which is worth causing a dangerous chase situation over?  If a warrant is THAT important put more effort and money into serving them.  Same with a past ticket.  As to DUI besides it being an arbitrary blood level number that get lowered and lowered how could scaring the driver into driving faster help?  

Again, I have never said "never chase" I asked if the policies about starting a chase are adequate compared to the risk  reward.  But since the online cops want to have an all or nothing scenario and think that anyone who questions policy is a cop hater its hard to have that conversation.

In most places in the world tire deflation devices aren't used on motorcycles for fear the drive will lose control with only having two wheels to stay upright on. Knowing this, crime in England has skyrocketed by those on motor cycles because they know police can't stop them. This has caused England to rethink their policy on stopping motorcycles, because as they have found with little ability to enforce punishment crime will rise. You must be careful about limiting police agencies ability to enforce laws because criminals find a way to adapt. No one wants people to die because of chases, but I think many here would also understand a bit more if their car got stolen, or they got robbed, and the police could do nothing but wait and see what happens.

[Blutarsky]

(09-17-2015, 07:27 AM)GMDino Wrote:   But since the online cops want to have an all or nothing scenario and think that anyone who questions policy is a cop hater its hard to have that conversation.

Don't feel bad, you only hate cops.  Conservatives hate Muslims, blacks, women, Mexicans......

So don't cry about how difficult it is to have a conversation.









And gays...conservatives hate gays too.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-17-2015, 07:23 AM)GMDino Wrote: 1) If there is no chase, there is no accident.

Stunning logic.  BUsing the same exact logic if the person doesn't flee there is no chase and no potential accident.

Quote:2) Was based on things they might do to get away from the police while being chased.  Why would escalating the situation be any better for the police to do than the "suspect".

Arguing that chasing a criminal is a bad idea because doing so may cause them to take a hostage and react violently is as bad an argument as has ever been advanced on the internet.  Seriously, Dabo is laughing at you.

Quote:3) Oh, I forgot, you don't think the police are looking for more when they da routine stop.  Guilty until proven innocent?  If you have a burned out taillight yu might be Ted Bundy. 

The minute you actively flee a traffic stop there is no presumption of guilt, you are guilty of fleeing.  Again, your last correlation is just stupid.  You're flailing in this thread, it's very entertaining.

(09-17-2015, 09:56 AM)Au165 Wrote: In most places in the world tire deflation devices aren't used on motorcycles for fear the drive will lose control with only having two wheels to stay upright on. Knowing this, crime in England has skyrocketed by those on motor cycles because they know police can't stop them. This has caused England to rethink their policy on stopping motorcycles, because as they have found with little ability to enforce punishment crime will rise. You must be careful about limiting police agencies ability to enforce laws because criminals find a way to adapt. No one wants people to die because of chases, but I think many here would also understand a bit more if their car got stolen, or they got robbed, and the police could do nothing but wait and see what happens.

Shh, logic doesn't work on gmdino in relation to law enforcement.  He hates cops, he won't admit it, after all he does all kinds of charity for police.  He's like the guy who hates black people but has "lots of black friends"

[GMDino]

(09-17-2015, 10:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Stunning logic.  BUsing the same exact logic if the person doesn't flee there is no chase and no potential accident.



Arguing that chasing a criminal is a bad idea because doing so may cause them to take a hostage and react violently is as bad an argument as has ever been advanced on the internet.  Seriously, Dabo is laughing at you.


The minute you actively flee a traffic stop there is no presumption of guilt, you are guilty of fleeing.  Again, your last correlation is just stupid.  You're flailing in this thread, it's very entertaining.


Shh, logic doesn't work on gmdino in relation to law enforcement.  He hates cops, he won't admit it, after all he does all kinds of charity for police.  He's like the guy who hates black people but has "lots of black friends"

Glad to see you bringing good points and defining arguments to the table.



Everyone else who posted (other than Larry...who will now ask why its all about him) has at least understood the question I had and attempted to discuss it calmly and rationally.  

But since you "know" how much I "hate cops" I guess you're just smarter than the rest of them.

Keep up the good work.

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2015, 09:56 AM)Au165 Wrote:  No one wants people to die because of chases, but I think many here would also understand a bit more if their car got stolen, or they got robbed, and the police could do nothing but wait and see what happens.

The thing is that most arrests do not occur after a high speed chase.

Some of you seem to think that police are incapable of doing investigative work and catching criminals in any way other than a high speed chase.  But that just is not true.

If my car was stolen and the police killed an innocent person trying to chase down the thief I would feel terrible.  How would you feel?  Would you be able to tell the parents or spouse of the dead person that it was justified in order to get your car back because your car was worth more than the life of an innocent bystander?

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2015, 10:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The minute you actively flee a traffic stop there is no presumption of guilt, you are guilty of fleeing.  Again, your last correlation is just stupid.  You're flailing in this thread, it's very entertaining.

The crime of fleeing to evade arrest does not justify risking the lives of innocent people.  That is the point that keeps going over your head.