High-speed police chases have killed thousands of innocent bystanders

[Au165]

(09-17-2015, 02:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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?

I talk to police every day about this very subject as part of my job. I can assure you that while most arrests don't require a high speed chase, the odds of catching a criminal drop significantly when they get away, especially in property crime cases. How many detectives do you think departments have? If every person is allowed to drive off with zero consequences, then you better find funding to exponentially grow the number of detectives in every department. Things aren't as black and white as you'd like them to be.

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2015, 02:57 PM)Au165 Wrote: I talk to police every day about this very subject as part of my job. I can assure you that while most arrests don't require a high speed chase, the odds of catching a criminal drop significantly when they get away, especially in property crime cases. How many detectives do you think departments have? If every person is allowed to drive off with zero consequences, then you better find funding to exponentially grow the number of detectives in every department. Things aren't as black and white as you'd like them to be.

I work in the criminal justice system.  I know very well how all of that works.  But "convenience" is not reason to kill innocent people.

The chase would still be justified in the case of any person who was a threat of violence.

Again, would you be able to tell the parents or children of an innocent person killed in a high speed chase that the chase was justified in order to get your car back?

[Au165]

(09-17-2015, 03:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I work in the criminal justice system.  I know very well how all of that works.  But "convenience" is not reason to kill innocent people.

The chase would still be justified in the case of any person who was a threat of violence.

Again, would you be able to tell the parents or children of an innocent person killed in a high speed chase that the chase was justified in order to get your car back?

A study by California Highway Patrol found that injury and loss of life are more likely not pursuing than from pursuits. I would tell them that because the alternative is telling someone else's family, who was killed by someone who wasn't stopped when they could have been, that police didn't do there job and your loved one is dead because of it. Before you say "I said violent offenders could be pursued" that doesn't include intoxicated drivers who kill 10k people annually. That 10k isn't including those who don't die or kill someone because they currently are chased and apprehended.

From CHP Study ...

“undoubtedly, innocent people may be injured or killed because an officer chooses to pursue
a suspect, but this risk is necessary to avoid the even greater loss that would occur if law
enforcement agencies were not allowed to aggressively pursue violators”

It has since been backed up by other studies, but the point is there are factors that can make pursuits safer. Things like road conditions, density of traffic and bystanders, officers experience and training level, and of course speeds should all be considered when determining when to pursue.

I think it is a necessary evil to maintain law and order, you don't, and neither of us will move off that position.

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2015, 03:56 PM)Au165 Wrote: Many studies have found that injury and loss of life are greater not pursuing than those resulting from pursuits. I would tell them that because the alternative is telling someone else's family who was killed by someone who wasn't stopped when they could have been that police didn't do there job and your loved one is dead because of it.  See the CHP Study that concluded ...


“undoubtedly, innocent people may be injured or killed because an officer chooses to pursue
a suspect, but this risk is necessary to avoid the even greater loss that would occur if law
enforcement agencies were not allowed to aggressively pursue violators”

It has since been backed up by other studies, but the point is there are factors that can make pursuits safer. Things like road conditions, density of traffic and bystanders, officers experience and training level, and of course speeds should all be considered when determining when to pursue. I think it is a necessary evil to maintain law and order.

Yes, I would like to check out that CHP study.  Do you have a link?

How do they define "greater loss"?  Do they consider more cars being stolen as a "greater loss" that that of an innocent human life?

[Au165]

(09-17-2015, 04:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, I would like to check out that CHP study.  Do you have a link?

How do they define "greater loss"?  Do they consider more cars being stolen as a "greater loss" that that of an innocent human life?

I believe, it is under CHP pursuit study I used to have a copy in the office, but when we moved it got tossed. You can probably find a copy online. It's finding were later backed up by an article in criminal justice policy review titled something like "Police Vehicle pursuits: legal concepts" or something along those lines. I used to keep copies of these, but I have moved to a different area of our organization and these aren't a large factor in my daily job anymore.

Something else to keep in mind Fred is the numbers are a bit misleading. In 1979 and all the way up to the early 90's many police used tactics in pursuits such as ramming and boxing which both are very dangerous to all involved, and have been banned for decades. With the arrival of tire deflation devices many pursuits are terminated much quicker and safer than they were at the start of the study.

[GMDino]

(09-17-2015, 04:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, I would like to check out that CHP study.  Do you have a link?

How do they define "greater loss"?  Do they consider more cars being stolen as a "greater loss" that that of an innocent human life?

[GMDino]

http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/pittsburgh-police-confiscate-50-bricks-heroin-afte/nng8f/

Quote:PITTSBURGH — Authorities confiscated an estimated $25,000 worth of heroin during an arrest early Thursday morning in East Hills.

According to the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Facebook page, officers were on patrol in the 8500 block of Frankstown Avenue just after 1 a.m. when they conducted a traffic stop.

The driver of the vehicle was identified as 34-year-old Derek Lawrence Terrell. Upon checking Lawrence’s ID, officers found out he was wanted on an outstanding warrant. He was arrested.

Authorities then conducted an inventory of his vehicle prior to towing it, and discovered 50 bricks of heroin. The 2,500 stamp bags have an approximate street value of $25,000, according to police.

Lawrence was taken to the Allegheny County Jail and charged with traffic violations and felony drug offenses.

Maybe he should have fled?

[Au165]

(09-17-2015, 04:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/local/pittsburgh-police-confiscate-50-bricks-heroin-afte/nng8f/


Maybe he should have fled?  

He would have gotten away too in this perfect no pursuit world since it was only a traffic stop to start with....

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2015, 04:46 PM)Au165 Wrote: He would have gotten away too in this perfect no pursuit world since it was only a traffic stop to start with....

Yes, because no drug dealers are ever arrested in any way other than traffic stops.

[GMDino]

(09-17-2015, 04:46 PM)Au165 Wrote: He would have gotten away too in this perfect no pursuit world since it was only a traffic stop to start with....

Makes you wonder why he didn't flee.  I mean if they flee they must be up to something.  Why wouldn't someone who WAS up to something flee?

[Au165]

(09-17-2015, 04:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, because no drug dealers are ever arrested in any way other than traffic stops.

Do the lives of drug users who's dealers flee and can't be pursued, allowing them to continue to deal, not matter? What about possible DUI suspects who can't be pursued who end up killing others down the road? As I said earlier the whole pursue not pursue is a much more complicated subject then you try to make it out to be. There are directly related deaths to pursuing, and there are many indirectly related deaths to letting those people run away undeterred.

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2015, 05:11 PM)Au165 Wrote: Do the lives of drug users who's dealers flee and can't be pursued, allowing them to continue to deal, not matter?

WTF does this even mean?

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2015, 05:11 PM)Au165 Wrote: What about possible DUI suspects who can't be pursued who end up killing others down the road? 

Since a drunk driver is a danger to the public safety it would be justified to chase him.

[Au165]

(09-17-2015, 05:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: WTF does this even mean?

It means that roughly 8,000 people a year die from heroin use. In general 20% of people addicted to heron will OD at some point. This guy while not directly a "violent" offender, meeting your criteria for pursuit, still kills people indirectly. I know, I know, you will go back to your "they can be arrested another way", but what about the ones who don't ever get picked up on the polices radar? The people they kill, their lives matter too.

[Au165]

(09-17-2015, 05:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Since a drunk driver is a danger to the public safety it would be justified to chase him.

Interesting, how do you know someone is a drunk driver if they run a stop sign and then take off when you flip your lights on without ever talking to them? You can maybe assume based on erratic driving, but what happens if they pursue and it turns out they aren't drunk? Who gets reprimanded for that?

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2015, 05:47 PM)Au165 Wrote: It means that roughly 8,000 people a year die from heroin use. In general 20% of people addicted to heron will OD at some point. This guy while not directly a "violent" offender, meeting your criteria for pursuit, still kills people indirectly. I know, I know, you will go back to your "they can be arrested another way", but what about the ones who don't ever get picked up on the polices radar? The people they kill, their lives matter too.

You can not blame a dealer for an OD.

Do you blame gun sellers for gun crimes?

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2015, 05:48 PM)Au165 Wrote: Interesting, how do you know someone is a drunk driver if they run a stop sign and then take off when you flip your lights on without ever talking to them? You can maybe assume based on erratic driving, but what happens if they pursue and it turns out they aren't drunk? Who gets reprimanded for that?

I am only talking about cases of erratic driving like weaving out of the lane, ignoring traffic control devices, erratic changes of speed, etc.  If a person driving like that flees then pursuit is justified because of the threat to public safety.  

[Au165]

(09-17-2015, 06:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am only talking about cases of erratic driving like weaving out of the lane, ignoring traffic control devices, erratic changes of speed, etc.  If a person driving like that flees then pursuit is justified because of the threat to public safety.  

This is a lot of the pursuits now!

[Au165]

(09-17-2015, 06:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You can not blame a dealer for an OD.

Do you blame gun sellers for gun crimes?

Is selling guns illegal? Are guns illegal?

[Au165]

Fred after reviewing a large portion of your posts in here, I have come to the conclusion you actually support the restrictive policies most departments have in place right now. Which I am okay with.