High-speed police chases have killed thousands of innocent bystanders

[Au165]

(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.

That's where I thought you were going, and I can understand what you are saying. I can help a little as my company posses a large amount of pursuit data. Roughly 70k pursuits occur a year, with a little fluctuation from year to year. I can tell you of the 70k pursuits probably close to half (somewhere between 40%-50%) are also charged with DUI/DWI (Includes drugs in that estimate). Many of these pursuits start based on minor traffic violations, after the pursuit is ended it is determined they were under the influence of something.

It was a little bit of a lazy attempt to show something that I get a better view at every day because of the data I am privy to. My bad.

[fredtoast]

(09-18-2015, 12:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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?  

Because I see a huge difference between a person being dead and a person having a dog bite.

You tried to draw an equivalency between minor injuries and death.  And that is a fail.

[SteelCitySouth]

(09-18-2015, 10:52 AM)Au165 Wrote: That's where I thought you were going, and I can understand what you are saying. I can help a little as my company posses a large amount of pursuit data. Roughly 70k pursuits occur a year, with a little fluctuation from year to year. I can tell you of the 70k pursuits probably close to half (somewhere between 40%-50%) are also charged with DUI/DWI (Includes drugs in that estimate). Many of these pursuits start based on minor traffic violations, after the pursuit is ended it is determined they were under the influence of something.

It was a little bit of a lazy attempt to show something that I get a better view at every day because of the data I am privy to. My bad.

Hey...No problem at all.  Like I said in the first post.  I agree with you overall.  I just don't like to see good positions being undercut by bad statistical usage. 

[fredtoast]

(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?

So which side of this argument are you on?

The fact is that a drunk driver is a threat to public safety.  The police have a duty to get him/her off the street. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2015, 10:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Because I see a huge difference between a person being dead and a person having a dog bite.

You tried to draw an equivalency between minor injuries and death.  And that is a fail.

You don't say?  The analogy is eliminating "risky" (your word) scenarios.  The world would be far safer if we eliminated pet cats and dogs.  You framed this debate not me.

[fredtoast]

(09-18-2015, 11:00 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You don't say?  The analogy is eliminating "risky" (your word) scenarios.  The world would be far safer if we eliminated pet cats and dogs.  You framed this debate not me.

"risk of death" =/= "risk of injury"

Everyone knows this.

Plus the OP was about deaths.  So you are the one trying to spin this to make the risk of a dog bite equal to the risk of death.

[Au165]

Pursuits are risky, which is why police should terminate them as quickly as possible. In the last 25 years there have been 20 deaths total when using tire deflation devices. While any number of deaths are bad, it is a much safer approach then merely chasing suspects until they stop.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2015, 11:08 AM)fredtoast Wrote: "risk of death" =/= "risk of injury"

Everyone knows this.

Plus the OP was about deaths.  So you are the one trying to spin this to make the risk of a dog bite equal to the risk of death.

Fair enough.  So we need to ban alcohol and cigarettes.  They both cause far more deaths than police pursuits.

(09-18-2015, 11:13 AM)Au165 Wrote: Pursuits are risky, which is why police should terminate them as quickly as possible. In the last 25 years there have been 20 deaths total when using tire deflation devices. While any  number of deaths are bad, it is a much safer approach then merely chasing suspects until they stop.

The point that you and I are making, which seems to be ignored, is that the alternative to police pursuits is allowing pretty much every criminal to escape.  Once criminals learn, and it wouldn't take long, that the police won't pursue you if you drive fast then you'll see a huge increase in people evading police.  The point is often made that violent crime has been dropping since the early 90's.  Why would you enact a policy that will ensure an increase in all types of crime?

[fredtoast]

(09-18-2015, 11:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fair enough.  So we need to ban alcohol and cigarettes.  They both cause far more deaths than police pursuits.

Those are things that people voluntarily do to themselves.

You are really on a roll with these "false equivalency" arguments today.

[Blutarsky]

(09-18-2015, 12:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

When making analogies, it's best that an apples to apples scenario be applied.

The thread title is about those killed as a result of high speed chases, not injured. In most cases owning a cat or dog doesn't constitute a dangerous situation. High speed chases are dangerous 100% of the time.

[Au165]

(09-18-2015, 11:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfa Wrote: The point that you and I are making, which seems to be ignored, is that the alternative to police pursuits is allowing pretty much every criminal to escape.  Once criminals learn, and it wouldn't take long, that the police won't pursue you if you drive fast then you'll see a huge increase in people evading police.  The point is often made that violent crime has been dropping since the early 90's.  Why would you enact a policy that will ensure an increase in all types of crime?

Well in Fred's defense he does support a restrictive policy, which I can understand. It's just a matter of drawing the line of who you can chase and who you can't. That is not an easy thing to determine, and something many departments struggle with when developing their SOP.

[fredtoast]

(09-18-2015, 11:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The point that you and I are making, which seems to be ignored, is that the alternative to police pursuits is allowing pretty much every criminal to escape.  Once criminals learn, and it wouldn't take long, that the police won't pursue you if you drive fast then you'll see a huge increase in people evading police.  The point is often made that violent crime has been dropping since the early 90's.  Why would you enact a policy that will ensure an increase in all types of crime?

Since I have repeatedly said that chases involving violent criminals are justified I don't see how this would create a huge rise in violent crime.

Fleeing in a motor vehicle is a felony in every state I am aware of.  As long as people know they are risking a felony conviction when they run from police I am guessing that their will not be a big rise in fleeing to evade.  You will still have the same stupid people running while people who want to avoid a felony will be just as likely to stop.

But even if a few criminals do escape justice I think it is worth it to save lives.

[Au165]

(09-18-2015, 11:22 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: High speed chases are dangerous 100% of the time.

What constitutes high speeds? Many pursuits actually occur at, or under, the posted speed limits. It's kind of a misnomer to refer to all pursuits as high speed chases.

[GMDino]

(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.

Yep that's what I meant.  Thank you.

[Blutarsky]

(09-18-2015, 11:25 AM)Au165 Wrote: What constitutes high speeds? Many pursuits actually occur at, or under, the posted speed limits. It's kind of a misnomer to refer to all pursuits as high speed chases.

So civilians are killed by pursuits at the posted speed limits?  Do the perps obey all traffic signs too? Interesting.

How silly was I to think that the point of fleeing was trying to escape from police.

I guess that's what watching too much TV will do to you. Watching a perp obeying all traffic signs and the speed limit would be boring.

[Au165]

(09-18-2015, 12:32 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: So civilians are killed by pursuits at the posted speed limits?  Do the perps obey all traffic signs too? Interesting.

How silly was I to think that the point of fleeing was trying to escape from police.

I guess that's what watching too much TV will do to you. Watching a perp obeying all traffic signs and the speed limit would be boring.

Yes, civilians are killed by pursuits at both posted speeds and high speeds. No they don't obey all traffic signs, however you also would be surprised how many will stop at stop signs and slow down through intersections. Many people who run have no end game in mind, they are simply scared. Many pursuits are short and stay around the posted speed limits and either end with a tire deflation device being used or the suspect simply pulls over and gives up or runs on foot.

I review 20+ pursuits a day. What is reality and how the media, and shows like worlds craziest police chases, portray pursuits are way different. There is a reason the world's craziest police chases isn't a weekly show, there aren't a ton of "Crazy" pursuits regularly.

[Blutarsky]

(09-18-2015, 12:48 PM)Au165 Wrote: Yes, civilians are killed by pursuits at both posted speeds and high speeds. No they don't obey all traffic signs, however you also would be surprised how many will stop at stop signs and slow down through intersections. Many people who run have no end game in mind, they are simply scared. Many pursuits are short and stay around the posted speed limits and either end with a tire deflation device being used or the suspect simply pulls over and gives up or runs on foot.

I review 20+ pursuits a day. What is reality and how the media, and shows like worlds craziest police chases, portray pursuits are way different. There is a reason the world's craziest police chases isn't a weekly show, simply but there aren't a ton of "Crazy" pursuits regularly.

Then all I need to do is amend my original statement by saying that any police pursuit is potentially dangerous, which doesn't change anything.

It's cool we have a people like you with expertise in different areas.

Except its unfair you have an advantage.
So please recuse yourself from this topic.

Just kidding, good job man!

[Au165]

(09-18-2015, 01:05 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: Then all I need to do is amend my original statement by saying that any police pursuit is potentially dangerous, which doesn't change anything.

It's cool we have a people like you with expertise in different areas.

Except its unfair you have an advantage.
So please recuse yourself from this topic.

Just kidding, good job man!

This is true, any police pursuit is potentially dangerous, which is why police should consider all risk factors before and during a pursuit and decide if it should continue/begin.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-18-2015, 11:19 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Those are things that people voluntarily do to themselves.

You are really on a roll with these "false equivalency" arguments today.

So your assertion is that the only people harmed by alcohol consumption are the people actually consuming it?  Do I really need to bring up the thousands of people killed and injured by drunk drivers?  How about the thousands of assaults that result from alcohol consumption?  How about the instances of domestic violence fueled by alcohol consumption?  The point being made is that society balances activities on the scale of risk versus reward.  In the case of alcohol society has decided that the reward of being able to drink alcohol, to inebriation or otherwise, outweighs all the risks described above.  In my opinion this decision becomes even easier in regards to police pursuits.  The benefits of catching tens of thousands of felons, violent or otherwise, a year far outweighs the statistically insignificant amount of innocent people killed during high speed pursuits.  How about motor vehicles as a whole?  We could eliminate traffic fatalities entirely by limiting motor vehicles to twenty-five miles per hour.  But, we have decided that the benefits of being able to get places quicker outweighs the over thirty thousand people killed per year in traffic accidents.  Is the point maybe starting to sink in?

The article cited by OP states that;

Quote:More than 5,000 bystanders and passengers have been killed in police car chases since 1979, and tens of thousands more were injured as officers repeatedly pursued drivers at high speeds and in hazardous conditions, often for minor infractions, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

Let's take the, intentionally vague, numbers above at face value.  That means that an average of 139 people are killed a year by police pursuits.  139 people out of a nation of 200-300 million (adjusting for the timeline cited above).  Is this really a topic that deserves intense scrutiny?  The realistic answer is hell no.  Is this a topic that's only even being discussed because of the present atmosphere of questioning absolutely anything law enforcement does?  The realistic answer is hell yes.  Also, when an article like this uses the intentionally vague term, "often", when making a point it means the actual numbers don't reinforce the argument being advanced.  Let's say just ten percent of police pursuits involve a violent felon, a very generous number from me, that means that literally thousands of violent felons are apprehended after police pursuits every year.  If you throw in felons in general, which would include dangerous and invasive crimes like burglary, you get tens of thousands more.


What people on your side of the argument completely ignore, and what AU pointed out very well above, is that if you don't allow any police pursuits unless a person involved is a known violent felon then you'll see an exponential increase in the number of people fleeing law enforcement.  The absurd concept of catching them later is just that, absurd.  As a defense attorney you know that simply apprehending people because the car used in a high speed escape is registered to you would never hold up in court.  Unless you apprehend the person directly from the vehicle you know that the odds of getting a convictable arrest is virtually nil.  Not to mention the myriad other crimes that couldn't be proven because the arrest took place hours or days after the event.

Finally, a little piece of anecdotal evidence.  Just yesterday we got two homicide suspects, from MS btw, we've been beating the bushes for because of a traffic stop for expired tags that turned into an, albeit brief, high speed pursuit.  No one involved was a "known violent felon" when the pursuit began.  Good thing for us we don't have the insane rules you're proposing in place or those two POS's would still be roaming the street engaging in gang related murder.  Serendipity right?

[GMDino]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/deputy-shoots-helicopter-suspect-fleeing-freeway-n430216

Quote:SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. — A driver who led authorities on a 100-mph freeway chase was struck by gunfire from a San Bernardino County sheriff's helicopter before dying, the agency confirmed Saturday.

However, the official cause of death will await an autopsy, a Sheriff's Department statement said. It didn't indicate how many times the driver was wounded.

Friday's chase began in Devore, east of Los Angeles, when deputies tried to pull over a man believed to have committed a home invasion robbery there a day earlier, authorities said.

The beige Chevrolet Tahoe instead led deputies on an afternoon chase through neighboring cities at 100 mph or more. The SUV blew through stop signs and red lights, narrowly missed pedestrians and then began heading the wrong way on northbound Interstate 215, according to the sheriff's statement.


A vehicular chase ended in a head-on collision that closed Interstate 215 in northwest San Bernardino. Calif. NBC Los Angeles
In Muscoy, a deputy opened fire from a helicopter, hitting the SUV several times and wounding the driver, who jumped out of the moving car and ran a few yards before collapsing and dying on the side of the roadway, authorities said.

His name wasn't immediately released.

The SUV, meanwhile, kept moving and crashed head-on into a Dodge Durango. A man and a 13-year-old boy were treated at a hospital and released but a woman remains hospitalized, the statement said.

She is "recovering from her injuries," the statement said.