High-speed police chases have killed thousands of innocent bystanders

[Rotobeast]

(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?

I see a lot of hate for gun shows and the NRA, so I'm assuming quite a few here do.

I also want to add that we can never know the statistics of the drivers that were never pursued and what results may have come from those decisions.
Therefore, this discussion will be heavily weighted to one side, when referring to statistics.
In other words, I think we are wasting our time looking for any kind of consensus.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(09-17-2015, 06:42 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I see a lot of hate for gun shows and the NRA, so I'm assuming quite a few here do.

I also want to add that we can never know the statistics of the drivers that were never pursued and what results may have come from those decisions.
Therefore, this discussion will be heavily weighted to one side, when referring to statistics.
In other words, I think we are wasting our time looking for any kind of consensus.

Well, I mean I personally use my self-defense heroin thanks to my dealer....

When I go hunting armed with coke, nothing is better. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-17-2015, 11:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: Glad to see you bringing good points and defining arguments to the table.

 

I've made plenty of points, you've chosen to ignore them and focus on my calling your inane arguments inane.  Thi sis likely because you realize your arguments are inane.

Quote: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.

 
Uh, durrrrr, I don't understand the question!  Seriously, dude?

Quote: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.

Yeah, you do, it's patently obvious and I'm hardly the only one who notices this.

(09-17-2015, 02:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

What do you mean by risk?  The amount of people killed by police pursuits is statistically insignificant, especially given the amount of pursuits that occur.  Using your logic no one should own a dog because the likelihood of being mauled is a risk that society should not allow.  Close to five million American's are bitten by dogs every year.  How about cats, their bites account for millions of dollars in health care costs as they almost always become infected.  Old people are especially represented.  By your logic we must ban all pet dogs and cats, the risk is simply too great.

[fredtoast]

(09-17-2015, 10:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What do you mean by risk?  The amount of people killed by police pursuits is statistically insignificant, especially given the amount of pursuits that occur.  Using your logic no one should own a dog because the likelihood of being mauled is a risk that society should not allow.  Close to five million American's are bitten by dogs every year.  How about cats, their bites account for millions of dollars in health care costs as they almost always become infected.  Old people are especially represented.  By your logic we must ban all pet dogs and cats, the risk is simply too great.

Police chases kill ten times as many people as dogs in the United States each year. You just call the number "insignificant" because it fits your agenda.  If there was suddenly a 1000% increase in the number of people killed by dogs I am sure very few people would call it "insignificant".

[*Nately120*]

(09-17-2015, 06:49 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Well, I mean I personally use my self-defense heroin thanks to my dealer....

When I go hunting armed with coke, nothing is better. 

What if instead of carrying a gun I wanted to carry a syringe of heroin with me to stab people who attack me?  As long as I use it for defense how could you argue that?  The fear of having a lethal amount of heroin injected into you should keep people from attacking me! 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-17-2015, 11:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Police chases kill ten times as many people as dogs in the United States each year. You just call the number "insignificant" because it fits your agenda.  If there was suddenly a 1000% increase in the number of people killed by dogs I am sure very few people would call it "insignificant".

Where did I say "killed" by dogs?  Where did I say "killed" by cats?  The number of injuries inflicted by these common pets far exceeds the injuries inflicted by high speed pursuits.  So, the question remains, why do you advocate eliminating high speed pursuits but not pet cats and dogs?  


Miracles, they're all around you and you don't even know it.

[GMDino]

(09-17-2015, 10:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've made plenty of points, you've chosen to ignore them and focus on my calling your inane arguments inane.  Thi sis likely because you realize your arguments are inane.


 
Uh, durrrrr, I don't understand the question!  Seriously, dude?


Yeah, you do, it's patently obvious and I'm hardly the only one who notices this.


What do you mean by risk?  The amount of people killed by police pursuits is statistically insignificant, especially given the amount of pursuits that occur.  Using your logic no one should own a dog because the likelihood of being mauled is a risk that society should not allow.  Close to five million American's are bitten by dogs every year.  How about cats, their bites account for millions of dollars in health care costs as they almost always become infected.  Old people are especially represented.  By your logic we must ban all pet dogs and cats, the risk is simply too great.

I was actually only focusing on you calling me stupid. 

And you don't understand the question as you have never answered it.  You simply say it the price of doing business.

Carry on. And have a great day!

[Blutarsky]

(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.  

The chances he gets to his final destination without hurting anyone or anything are far greater than if this idiot speeds trying to elude the police. Did you ever think of that?

[Au165]

(09-18-2015, 09:38 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: The chances he gets to his final destination without hurting anyone or anything are far greater than if this idiot speeds trying to elude the police. Did you ever think of that?

The context was "how would you know they were drunk", that was his response on when to justify a stop. As far as being more likely to not hurt someone, 10k people die a year in drunk driving related accidents, 200 die a year in police pursuits including pursuing drunk drivers. It is far safer to stop a drunk driver than let them continue. Don't forget many pursuits end very quickly using things like Stop Sticks.

[Blutarsky]

(09-17-2015, 06:26 PM)Au165 Wrote: 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.

All we need to do now is to educate the public on those policies...and watch the incidents of punks fleeing police go sky high because they know the cops have their hands tied.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-18-2015, 09:47 AM)Au165 Wrote: The context was "how would you know they were drunk", that was his response on when to justify a stop. As far as being more likely to not hurt someone, 10k people die a year in drunk driving related accidents, 200 die a year in police pursuits including pursuing drunk drivers. It is far safer to stop a drunk driver than let them continue. Don't forget many pursuits end very quickly using things like Stop Sticks.

I am in agreement with you on this topic as a whole.  That being said.  That is not how statistics work and is a prime example I would use, in the science class I used to teach, to show how people misuse statistics to inappropriately bolster their argument. 

[GMDino]

(09-18-2015, 09:58 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I am in agreement with you on this topic as a whole.  That being said.  That is not how statistics work and is a prime example I would use, in the science class I used to teach, to show how people misuse statistics to inappropriately bolster their argument. 

Could you expand on that?

[Blutarsky]

(09-18-2015, 09:47 AM)Au165 Wrote: The context was "how would you know they were drunk", that was his response on when to justify a stop. As far as being more likely to not hurt someone, 10k people die a year in drunk driving related accidents, 200 die a year in police pursuits including pursuing drunk drivers. It is far safer to stop a drunk driver than let them continue. Don't forget many pursuits end very quickly using things like Stop Sticks.

OK Fred. My bad.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-18-2015, 10:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: Could you expand on that?

On what part?  The part where I agree with him as well as others that the statistical losses due to a pursuit in my mind do not justify ending pursuits or the incorrect use of statistics he provided?

[Blutarsky]

(09-18-2015, 10:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: Could you expand on that?

So numbers do lie after all!

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-18-2015, 10:18 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: So numbers do lie after all!

No.  Numbers do not lie...Much like guns don't kill people.

[Au165]

(09-18-2015, 09:53 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: All we need to do now is to educate the public on those policies...and watch the incidents of punks fleeing police go sky high because they know the cops have their hands tied.

So, restrictive and no pursuit are very different. Restrictive policies limit pursuits based on speed, road conditions, officer training, and offense. I think all these factors should be considered in any pursuit situation in order to keep everyone safe. Almost every department in the country has some for of restrictive policy, some have no pursuits, but none have open policies that allow a pursuit no matter what. We live in a world obsessed with liability, so departments have tried to minimize their exposure as much as they can while still doing their job.

[Blutarsky]

(09-18-2015, 10:18 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: On what part?  The part where I agree with him as well as others that the statistical losses due to a pursuit in my mind do not justify ending pursuits or the incorrect use of statistics he provided?

No doubt the statistics..an example of how they are used to inappropriately support an agenda.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-18-2015, 10:21 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: No doubt the statistics..an example of how they are used to inappropriately support an agenda.

I literally highlighted it in AU's post.  He wanted to use the overall deaths per year as a result of drinking and driving with overall deaths due to pursuit.  This is quite incorrect as there are other populations within the second group that are not driving impaired when being pursued.  That however is not the biggest issue.  When comparing the first group with the second group we actually need to know more about the first to get a real understanding of the risk when pursuing the impaired person in the second group.

The information we need is impossible to get though.  We need to know how many impaired drivers make it home without incident so we can get a per-capita of impaired drivers that cause accidents that include the death of someone.  Then we need to find out how many pursuits of impaired individuals happen, and how many of those end in the death of someone to get a per-capita within that population.  Then we can finally compare the two populations.

All too often people want to compare two populations using the raw numbers and then assign risk.  This is lazy and results in the misappropriation of resources in the end.

[Blutarsky]

(09-18-2015, 10:31 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I literally highlighted it in AU's post.  He wanted to use the overall deaths per year as a result of drinking and driving with overall deaths due to pursuit.  This is quite incorrect as there are other populations within the second group that are not driving impaired when being pursued.  That however is not the biggest issue.  When comparing the first group with the second group we actually need to know more about the first to get a real understanding of the risk when pursuing the impaired person in the second group.

The information we need is impossible to get though.  We need to know how many impaired drivers make it home without incident so we can get a per-capita of impaired drivers that cause accidents that include the death of someone.  Then we need to find out how many pursuits of impaired individuals happen, and how many of those end in the death of someone to get a per-capita within that population.  Then we can finally compare the two populations.

All too often people want to compare two populations using the raw numbers and then assign risk.  This is lazy and results in the misappropriation of resources in the end.

Yes you highlighted it, but expanding on it was what Dino and I were getting at...which you so nicely did here.

 Probabilities and Statistics...the only thing I remember from that class are the terms mode, median, and standard deviation lol.