Do you just let the criminal get away??

[Lewkowski]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-m...shot-by-police

Blah blah - some 13 year old gang banger dies by cop. But let's skip to the end of the article:

"Lightfoot also directed Brown to draft a new foot pursuit policy before the anticipated summer surge in violence – reforms that still have not been put in place four years after the Justice Department recommended that the Chicago Police Department develop a new policy given how "poor police practices" make for "tactically unsound foot pursuits" that pose a danger to both officers and public.

"It is one of the most dangerous things that they engage in. They often get separated from their partners. Communication is difficult. You’re running through a dense, urban environment. An alley, a street, a backyard," Lightfoot said. "It’s way past time that we reckon with this reality that happens literally multiple times every day across many neighborhoods in our city, hundreds of times a year.""

What is Lightfoot actually proposing? Just letting criminals get away? That's literally the purpose of the police! To hunt down criminals, and either successfully arrest them or if they are armed and refuse to drop their weapon, put the threat down. I understand the idea of making sure a pursuit is tactically sound for the safety of the officers, but for the safety of the criminal? What the actual fuck.

[RandBlade]

If its dangerous to chase then yes in the UK you let the criminal get away - and then go round them up at your own convenience later.

If you've got body camera and CCTV then that should be a viable option. A bit 1984 but its what is done. Public safety first, round up criminals later.

Its how the London Riots a decade ago were dealt with. The police got criticised for standing back and not arrested those rioting at the time, but almost nobody was hurt - then a week or two later pop-up courts were created and all those identified were being frogmarched to court and handed sentences for those that were pleading guilty.

PS it literally says "danger to both officers and public" - you care about safety of the officers, but not for the public? Or do you think all of the public are criminals?

[Lewkowski]

1. It isn't UK where cameras are everywhere. - Also everyone is wearing masks these days making it harder still.

2. Who do you think they mean by the public? The issue was with the armed criminal getting killed not a bystander.

[RandBlade]

1. No, it is Chicago, where cameras are almost everywhere. Chicago is one of the most surveillance-heavy cities in America.

2. "pose a danger to both officers and public"

[Timbuk2]

That's literally the purpose of the police! To hunt down criminals, and either successfully arrest them or if they are armed and refuse to drop their weapon, put the threat down.

No.

The purpose of the police is to protect the public.

[RandBlade]

No.

The purpose of the police is to protect the public.

Yes, this.

[Steely Glint]

No.

The purpose of the police is to protect the public.

Clarification: The purpose of the police is assuredly not to protect the public. They have no legal obligation to do so.

Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms

UK

"…the Police are not normally under a duty of care to protect individuals from a danger of injury which they have not themselves created, including injury caused by the conduct of third parties, in the absence of special circumstances such as an assumption of responsibility".

You could argue about whether or not it should be to protect the public, but in law it is not.

However, as the above quote clarifies they do have a duty to protect the public from situations they, themselves, have created, so that would cover, for example, dangerous chase.

[RandBlade]

I think you're misreading what the term duty of care means.

Their purpose is to protect the public, but they don't have a duty of care as the public are adults making their own decisions. Teachers have a duty of care over children, the police don't have a duty of care over the public.

[Lewkowski]

No.

The purpose of the police is to protect the public.

The public is protected when armed criminals are taken off the streets... one way or another.

[Steely Glint]

The public is protected when armed criminals are taken off the streets... one way or another.

I mean, that's what Defund the Police was all about but you nearly wet yourself when you heard about it.

[RandBlade]

The public is protected when armed criminals are taken off the streets... one way or another.

In a society with gun control. But in America there will always be armed criminals since there's an overabundance of arms, if you want rid of armed criminals you'll have to get rid of the arms first.

[Lewkowski]

In a society with gun control. But in America there will always be armed criminals since there's an overabundance of arms, if you want rid of armed criminals you'll have to get rid of the arms first.

Our right to own fire arms is on equal footing to the right to vote, the right to practice religion and the right of free speech. So no, guns aren't going away.

[RandBlade]

Then neither are armed criminals. Live with it.