Should police continue a high speed pursuit that is dangerous?

[ImAnOgre]

Recently (yesterday) there was a wreck during a high speed pursuit in Georgia just a few miles west of Atlanta. The wreck, caused by the suspected criminal, had two injuries. (one, the alledged criminal and the other a police officer involved in the chase).

My question for you folks..... should officers continue or terminate a chase once they determine that the pursued is not going to give up? Especially if the crime was non-violent?

Source, not that it is needed but just incase anyone wants to read it.

http://www.douglascountysentinel.com...9bb30f31a.html

Does it create a dangerous precedent to not go after criminals?

Is there a point in which the officers should terminate the chase?

Do we even care if the crime is shoplifting?

As soon as the chase turns dangerous, has the perp crossed a line and now the cops MUST pursue to stop other injuries?

[Ominous Gamer]

drones.

people fear the militarization of police, so the word drone instantly sets people off, but... they are rapidly becoming cheap/small/light/sturdy enough to be launched from police cars. Police officers are quickly coming into several different devices that can either instantly end a pursuit in a nonviolent manner or follow from a safe distance.

beyond that, the decision to give chase is largely going to depend on the probability of collateral damage. If you're fleeing the middle of BFE I've got no problem in the police hauling ass if they feel like doing so.

[Khendraja'aro]

Drones small enough to be launched from cars neither possess the endurance nor the neccessary speeds.

[Loki]

Give a minimum 10 year sentence to anyone involved in a high-speed chase. That should deter almost anyone who only committed a minor crime. It should make up for the lower incidence of catching people.

[Wraith]

I think it'd set a dangerous precedent to give up the chase. You don't want to tell criminals that they can escape from the police just by driving recklessly, because then they'll do it. I have no problem with making a high speed chase an additional and separate offense to charge the criminal with, if that isn't the case already.

[RandBlade]

If possible: Yes.

There are alternatives to high speed pursuits like aerial pursuits, CCTV etc

[Loki]

Cruise missiles.

[Flixy]

The first mission is public safety though - if the chase is really endangering other people, you'll have to call it off and hope a helicopter gets them.

[Lewkowski]

Absolutely keep chasing UNLESS there are alternatives that will keep an eye on the criminal. Then also make mandatory sentences for people who evade police in that matter. And make sure the law requires consecutive sentencing not concurrent because if its concurrent it doesn't put them in prison in any longer.

Public safety is further endangered if you give criminals a get out of jail free car every time they decide to speed up.

[ImAnOgre]

Give a minimum 10 year sentence to anyone involved in a high-speed chase. That should deter almost anyone who only committed a minor crime. It should make up for the lower incidence of catching people.

That assumes criminals know the penal code. And with us having felony evading laws currently on the books, I would think they don't.

[Loki]

Publicize it.

[Flixy]

There's already ignoring a police stop sign, reckless endangerment, etc, though, so it's not unpunishable.

[RandBlade]

Police here won't chase if its dangerous to themselves or public safety but will catch and prosecute the bugger. I don't see the harm in that.

[Ominous Gamer]

but will catch and prosecute the bugger. I don't see the harm in that.

you have any sources that a catch rate doesn't drop if the chase is ended prematurely? I took that to be the entire point of this thread. If a catch is guaranteed with or without a chase no one defend the chase, except for someone as fucked up as lewk.

[Dreadnaught]

Taking this a step further, what do people think about having cars that can be remotely "killed" by police? Maybe it would require more development of self-driving car technology to allow this to be done "safely".

Reasonable measure for public safety or invitation for police abuse?

[Flixy]

Don't forget invitation for technical problems, criminal abuse (carjacking just got easier!) while likely deactivated/avoided by using older cars by the more organized criminals.

[RandBlade]

you have any sources that a catch rate doesn't drop if the chase is ended prematurely? I took that to be the entire point of this thread. If a catch is guaranteed with or without a chase no one defend the chase, except for someone as fucked up as lewk.

No. Do you have any that it does drop?

I thought the point of the thread was also about priorities. My priority is that Public safety is more important than catching the criminal right here, right now. If there is negligible risk to public safety (eg its on a clear freeway/motorway) at night then continue. If its in an urban area with pedestrians walking around and a very high risk of someone mounting the kerb and killing pedestrians - find another solution.

[Flixy]

No. Do you have any that it does drop?

Well, common sense indicates that if you give up a chase, the chance is higher they get away with it.

I thought the point of the thread was also about priorities. My priority is that Public safety is more important than catching the criminal right here, right now. If there is negligible risk to public safety (eg its on a clear freeway/motorway) at night then continue. If its in an urban area with pedestrians walking around and a very high risk of someone mounting the kerb and killing pedestrians - find another solution.

Agreed. Was watching some cop show on the BBC a while back where one of the cars with a camera crew got involved in a high speed chase. They had to continually update the command center about speeds, risks, etc., and gave up the chase when the suspect drove wit high speed in an urban area and it simply wasn't safe anymore.

Luckily in that case the helicopter showed up just then, and they apprehended the suspects some time later anyway (funny to see, because one suspect simply pretended to be a normal guy walking down the street, unaware he was being followed and identified to the police on the ground by a police helicopter ), but that's a limited resource.

[earthJoker]

Taking this a step further, what do people think about having cars that can be remotely "killed" by police?

Such a system can be easily bypassed or hacked. Just like the speed limitation in some cars.

On the other hand, you could just prohibit cars that have such a big engine, but that's not politically practically.

[RandBlade]

Once you get into an urban situation then helicopters, CCTV, traffic cameras etc ought to be a less limited resource. You don't always need a sledgehammer to crack a nut and some ingenuity ought to be able to be used to capture the suspect at lowered risk.

[Flixy]

Most cctv (atms, etc) are recording and accessed after the fact, traffic cams are more available on highways, and I don't know how easy it is to use them in a live, high speed chase.

[Ominous Gamer]

No.

Then this statement is false:

will catch and prosecute the bugger.

[ImAnOgre]

Taking this a step further, what do people think about having cars that can be remotely "killed" by police? Maybe it would require more development of self-driving car technology to allow this to be done "safely".

Reasonable measure for public safety or invitation for police abuse?

Not a fan as it would likely increase the cost of vehicles. And why should I pay more for a car because someone MIGHT use another vehicle to run from the police.

[Ominous Gamer]

GM vehicles already have that built in. Its called OnStar.

[RandBlade]

Then this statement is false:

Anecdotal but any time I've ever heard of such a case in the UK I've never once heard that they weren't caught. Akin to what Flixy wrote.

Perhaps I should have put the word try in their if you what to be a pedant, though being a pedant can you 100% guarantee nobody ever escapes from a high speed car chase and gets away?

[Ominous Gamer]

Anecdotal but any time I've ever heard of such a case in the UK I've never once heard that they weren't caught. Akin to what Flixy wrote.

Perhaps I should have put the word try in their if you what to be a pedant, though being a pedant can you 100% guarantee nobody ever escapes from a high speed car chase and gets away?

god i hope you aren't based your anecdotal evidence on a cop show

and no one has stated that chases end successfully 100% of the time. but you have no idea if you're talking about a 95% to 40% drop, or a 80% to 60% drop. IPCC released a report in 04 that said 21% of drivers from abandoned chases managed a "good escape".

[RandBlade]

No anecdotally based on news stories, though I probably hear about more US high speed chases than UK ones.

79% successful capture rate of those from aborted chases (were the chase is abandoned due to high risk to public safety) seems like a reasonably high success rate.

I have no idea what the "good escape" ratio of those who continue chases is but even if it zero then is it worth killing a member of the public in order to capture avoid a 21% risk of not capturing a driver? In my eyes: No.

As technology has improved over the last 9 years it would amaze me if the escape ratio is higher now than it was then.

If the risk to public safety is high then which is a higher priority for you: avoiding the (as yet unquantified) risk of injuring or killing innocent members of the public or avoiding the (1/5) risk of letting the criminal escape?

[Ominous Gamer]

is it worth killing a member of the public in order to capture avoid a 21% risk of not capturing a driver? In my eyes: No.

then thats your opinion, i only wanted to point the rather large difference between "catch and prosecute" and "catch and prosecute 79%"

If the risk to public safety is high then which is a higher priority for you: avoiding the (as yet unquantified) risk of injuring or killing innocent members of the public or avoiding the (1/5) risk of letting the criminal escape?

11 pursuit related fatalities last year. My stance has already been expressed.

[ImAnOgre]

then thats your opinion, i only wanted to point the rather large difference between "catch and prosecute" and "catch and prosecute 79%"


11 pursuit related fatalities last year. My stance has already been expressed.

11 pursuit related fatalities seems like a very low number. Was that nationwide? Or just in Flordai? Or just in orlando?

[Khendraja'aro]

I'd really like to see something like a directed EMP. That would work wonders on the would-be speedracers. They get caught and their ride is totaled