Discussion in 'Crimes in the News' started by KayElJay, Jun 21, 2016.
(Having some weird tech issues today, so I'm unable to bring over any text. Sorry!)
This is why many places have ruled against police chases unless there's a critical life or death situation.
Far, FAR too often it results in the police or the vehicle being chased killing someone, either those involved in the chase or more often than not innocent bystanders.
I've seen it time and time again. There should be some national laws against this instituted. IMO
<mod snip> There is NO REASON to risk peoples lives and put a community in danger with a high speed chase unless it's absolutely necessary in order to prevent the drivers of the chased cars from carrying out extreme violence.
RIP Sgt. Stacey Baumgartner and Adan Hilario Jr; healing thoughts to the other crash victims.
from marble's posts: "This is why many places have ruled against police chases unless there's a critical life or death situation." bbm
" ... absolutely necessary in order to prevent the drivers of the chased cars from carrying out extreme violence." bbm
If fed law, st law, or LE policy prohibits police chases, can any driver seeing LEO car thru back window just stomp on the gas & speed off w no repercussions at the time? Should LE just write down plate/tag # and try to locate driver tomorrow, next week, or next month? Is ^that^ what our law should dictate?
Weaving in & out of lane? Crossing into oncoming traffic lane? W passengers, perhaps children not belt-restrained? Driving carelessly & imprudently - which LEO can observe, possibly as indications of impaired driving - drunk, drugged (legal Rx or street drug), diabetic episode, epileptic seizure, or other medical event?
Plus circumstances in which LEO may not be able to observe the driver's life & death danger to others. Holding a hostage or sexual prey in backseat? Driver heading to hold up gas station, liquor store; or driver w deadly weapons, planning to shoot a classroom of kids, office or factory of (ex?) coworkers; or driver w explosive device for courthouse or gov't bldg. Maybe a driver ready to run over & back up wife/ex-wife/gf/ex-gf w prot./order against him.
W benefit of hindsight, we see a tragic result of one given chase. If Tx law, Patton Village ordinance, or PVPD policy flat out prohibited chases, imo we would see injuries & fatalities resulting from LE not pursuing.
Has anyone located pdf/link of Tx law, PV, or PVPD policy on pursuits? I have not seen. Difficult to know from linked articles I've read, all the details & sequence of events in this particular situation, and whether this LEO violated law or local policy in pursuing this driver.
JM2cts, could be all wrong.
If a "no chase" policy was instituted, I wonder what people would say when police let drunk drivers go roaring off, and then those very same drunk drivers mow down a family of five, or a vanload of nuns.
Maybe we should have a national law that requires a governor on all cars that prevents the car from driving faster than 40mph.
Maybe we should have a national law that requires one of those breathalyzer thingies on all cars, so that they won't start until the driver breathes into them with non-alcoholic breath.
Or, maybe we should stop coddling drunk drivers. Maybe, instead of giving them ticket after ticket, and then finally suspending their licenses but with hardship drive-to-work exemptions, we should toss them in the clink for a while and prohibit them from ever driving again.
HUNDREDS of people are killed in police chases every year. HUNDREDS.
YES There will be repercussions for the driver who takes off: namely an added charge for failure to stop, evading police, resisting arrest, leaving scene of crime etc. etc.
As for your hypotheticals: how many people who are driving stupidly/aggressively/drunk are also coincidentally (just by chance!) holding someone hostage, about to shoot up a neighborhood, or otherwise probably an immediate danger?
There are other ways to catch these people that do not include high speed car chases (blockades, arrest at a later time, etc.). These techniques have proven to work and be worth the trade-off in places where protocol warns against escalating high speed pursuits.
Here are some statistics to think about;
According to the report, about 30 percent of all police chases end in crashes, often injuring or killing people nearby.
Records from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration cited at least 11,500 people killed in police chases from 1979 to 2013. That's an average of 329 people a year. Of those killed, 5,000 were not behind the wheel.
Do people think that this "friendly fire" is worth the police getting their man immediately every time?
Since my post was edited by a mod, I will rephrase: Do people think it's worth having officers killed in these crashes since my bringing it up as being an irresponsible approach to law enforcement was deemed disrespectful to the police given an officer was killed?
There's a lot more in this article. Frankly, I wasn't questioning whether a dangerous high speed pursuit is legal in Texas, I was questioning whether it should be legal in only narrowly defined situations nationally.
Well, given the number of people who are injured or killed by drunk drivers being chased by the police, I don't think the chase makes the driver less lethal than trying to set up a road block or arrest him at a later time.
And yes, I agree that people with multiple drunk driving conditions need to face serious consequences because they are a huge danger to society.
In reading above cbs link, I did not see those numbers but could have missed them. Respectfully requesting link pls, w ^ numbers. Thx in adv.
According to MADD, every day in America 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes.
That's 9,855 every year.
That's almost as many people killed in drunk driving crashes every year as the total number killed in police crashes in 35 years.
Thousands of people are killed in drunk driving crashes every year. THOUSANDS.
Drunk driving is not some harmless activity that results in no damage to anyone if the police just let the drunk go roaring away.
I was somewhat surprised (probably should not have been) to see that federal legis influence reaches so far down locally to shape LE 'vehicular pursuit' guidelines at city PD, county sheriff level. But re LE pursuits, seems to stop short of mandating the policy.
Short version. Fed legislation -
- authorizes Sec of Trans to issue $ grants (carrot) to states which pass various laws which Sec says enhances highway safety.*
- allows Sec of Trans to withhold (the stick) some fed highway funds from st's not passing those laws or meeting "performance" criteria (e.g., re seat belt use child restraints, drunk driving, etc.
- provides sts are to encourage all its law enforcement agencies to follow vehicular pursuits guidelines issued by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.**
Seems ^ LE Vehicular Pursuits guideline should (imo) be avail in http://www.theiacp.org/Desk-Reference
Oh, sorry, members only. "Model policies are available exclusively to IACP members and IACP Net customers. After logging in to the IACP website, members can access model policies directly via www.theiacp.org/MPMembersOnly"
I tried to open link but no luck. Can anyone figure out a way to open this one or the one above? thx in adv.
Section 402 Legislation, Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 USC Chapter 4, As Amended by SAFETEA-LU ... Act of 2008, Revision June 2008 "
* "§ 402. Highway safety programs
(a) Each State shall have a highway safety program approved by the Secretary, designed to reduce traffic accidents and deaths, injuries, and property damage resulting therefrom.... The Secretary shall ... collection and reporting of data on traffic-related deaths and injuries by the States...."
[Blah blah, Sec can issue grant $ to st's providing safety data & st's passing hiwy safety laws, re seat belts, speed limits, blah, blah]
** (l) Law enforcement vehicular pursuit training.--A State shall actively encourage all relevant law enforcement agencies in such State to follow the guidelines established for vehicular pursuits issued by the International Association of Chiefs of Police that are in effect on the date of enactment of this subsection or as revised and in effect after such date as determined by the Secretary.". <--- bbm sbm
If you want to see what happens when the police institute a no chase policy, look at Milwaukee. Our police chief publicly announced that police would no longer chase in many circumstances back in 2010. Since that time, car theft has skyrocketed, carjackings are currently rising at an alarming rate, drug dealers have moved their business out of drug houses and off street corners and into cars and despite all that, both criminals and innocent people are still dying when the 14, 15 and 16 year-old car thieves go joy-riding knowing they won't be chased and end up crashing.
When a tragedy happens, there's always an outcry that we must "do something." But the something that we do doesn't always help, and sometimes it makes things worse.
From the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/25/why-police-shouldnt-chase-criminals/
Statistics from the FBI within an opinion article from an officer on the FBI's own website: https://leb.fbi.gov/2010/march/evidence-based-decisions-on-police-pursuits-the-officers-perspective
Further research shows that the FBI believes these statistics are under-reported by a huge margin because reporting to a central database isn't required by all police departments nationally.
Not to mention we are only talking about hundreds of deaths- not included are people who were critically injured and/or disfigured but lived- which I'm assuming is an equal (or more likely) larger number.
Right, but what does this have to do with police chases? How many of those *Thousands* of drivers were stopped by the police in the first place? And if someone is driving drunk and is stopped by the cops and then takes off at high speeds, which scenario is likely to be less likely to end in someone getting killed- a high speed pursuit with the cops chasing someone who is drunk off their @ss and making the most irresponsible and impaired split second decisions possible, or letting them get away at which point they are more likely to slow down to reasonable (albeit still impaired) driving speeds, possibly even pulling off the road at some point to hide or sober up? I fail to see how the least dangerous decision to make for innocent bystanders/the surrounding community would be to instigate a high speed chase with a drunk driver
I would like to see statistics on this. Given 1/3 of all police chases end with a crash I have a hard time believing that more people are being killed by joyriders than as a result of high speed chases but I'm willing to learn something new if you have numbers to back this up.
I did read the letter written by the Alderman, but I am unconvinced that the uptick in many of the crimes listed is due to the no-pursuit policy. I would like to see a direct comparison of current deaths from joyriders to deaths from previous police pursuits. Also, IMO as much as I feel property crimes, robberies, etc. shouldn't be given a free pass, I am not willing to accept high numbers of deaths in our communities due to these pursuits as the cost of enforcing the law against those crimes. This isn't an abstract numbers game for people have lost and will lose loved ones - it's a shame that the police feel as though criminals are "laughing in their faces" (as the letter states)- but I'm not willing to to say, whelp, 1 in 3 is fine odds to gamble on people's lives. Your mileage may vary, as they say.
I have mixed feelings. There are times I think it's necessary but I've been watching flowers bloom around our new house. Flowers planted by an innocent woman minding her own business, driving down the street then killed instantly during a high speed chase :rose:
I live in the city of Milwaukee and it seems like a daily occurance now. Gang bangers carjack or steal a car, go on a crime spree and have absolutely no fear of getting caught because of this nonsense.
I didn't say, nor did the alderman say that MORE people were being killed. I said that despite the no chase policy, people were and are STILL being killed. What is a fact is that more cars are being stolen, more carjackings are occurring, at least the same amount of drug dealing is occurring, and all with fewer arrests. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwau...arply-in-milwaukee-b99623076z1-357239181.html
While I believe it's an admiral goal to try and not have needless deaths due to police chases, what ensues when the police stop chasing is something akin to the Wild West. You say that you are not willing to accept high numbers of deaths in an attempt to stop property crimes. I wonder where you live. Are you able to safely put your children into the car for school in the morning without fear of having your car stolen at gun point, perhaps with your child inside? That just happened a few weeks ago on the south side of Milwaukee. http://fox6now.com/2016/05/26/polic...jacked-her-one-month-old-baby-inside-the-car/
So, in my mind, we aren't risking fewer lives with a no chase policy, but instead are encouraging even more crime, and even more brazen crimes. Not to mention, creating even more flight from the city. Crime creates a vicious cycle. High crime leads to people with the means to, moving to the suburbs, leaving only the criminals, those without the means to move and us hard core city dwellers who may just have a screw or two loose. Crime lowers property values and property taxes. People start not wanting to come into the city and end up spending their money in the suburbs. Without sufficient tax revenue, the city can't afford enough police, or good schools, giving people even more reasons to flee.
In a perfect world we could look at things like car theft as "just a property crime" and all agree that it's not worth risking anyone's life for a car, but to do so we'd also need to turn a blind eye to the much larger picture.
Here is an accident in which two teenagers were killed and three more people were injured when the teen driving a stolen car blew a red light and was struck by another car. I drive on Lloyd St every day, this is MY neighborhood. Also note the article mentions another car theft "accident" in which a retired couple was killed when their car was struck. http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/...lwaukees-west-side-b99469449z1-297581461.html.
What is happening in and to the city of Milwaukee is a tragedy. I don't know what the answer is, but I can guarantee it's not what we are currently doing.
Separate names with a comma.