Author Topic: SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect  (Read 1199 times)

Offline Yknurd

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1248
      • Satan Is Cool...Tell Your Friends
SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect
« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2007, 09:26:02 AM »
Say someone walking down the street was pointing a gun at people, maybe shooting at a few also, maybe even hitting a few, what would the cops do?  I would like to think they would shoot to kill.

Why is it any less dangerous when a 'fleeing suspect' is speeding with a one ton weapon?
Drunky | SubGenius
Fat Drunk Bastards
B.A.A.H. - Black Association of Aces High

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13958
SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect
« Reply #31 on: May 01, 2007, 10:01:00 AM »
It appears number 1 and 2 have already been noted and responded to by others in the bbs here. I do want to state your response to #2 is rather juvenile. You based the pursuit ars the responsibility of the ford engine. Yep how true, it made you flee and commit what in many jurisdictions would be a felony. Tell me just what major problem were you fleeing from when you decided to run? How many people did you endanger by your choice?

As to pursuit policies. Yep they have changed in many locations. They did in my old jurisdiction as well even before I retired. Doing one for a purely traffic offense is not particularly smart. The only way you will ever know however that it was only over a traffic offense is if the fleeing felon is stopped. As long as all pursuits are stopped or never initiated you won't know what was in the car. It's a tough call at times. Announcing the no pursuit policy in Tucson caused an increase in the number of vehicles fleeing over petty items as the driver knew all he / she had to do was run and the pursuit would be terminated. It's a get out of ticket free situation for them. I found it to be especially so in the University and some High School areas. I had DUI's flee as well including one who was stopped then fled through a residential area at night after turning off his headlights. He ended up getting stopped some miles later but the prosecutor dropped the charges because the vehicle wasn't under constant surveillance and no one could prove that the driver when stopped was the driver when the car fled.

As for getting the "tag" is concerned there is something you should understand. First there is no way to determine if that plate belongs to the vehicle unless it is stopped. Secondly the entire vehicle may have been stolen or jacked. Third, the plate does not respond to a summons or indictment, neither does the car. That's because you must have the driver identified and then taken before a court. To date the vehicles and "tags" have refused to cooperate and identify who was actually operating the vehicle at the time. Their refusal to testify under oath makes it pretty silly to assume that having the tag means you have a prosecution of a driver for the offense in question.

Once the decision to terminate the pursuit is made and implemented there is still no guarantee the felon will reduce their own speed. Even in the cases of helo monitoring. If there is a collision by the felon the Police are still blamed because they allowed the felon to get away and create the collision. If it turns out that the felon is actually another pedophile (or insert the dangerous criminal of your choice here) they get blamed for allowing him to escape. Nice damned if you do and if you don't situation. That public safety thing all depends on how the public decides to view it and that is always after the fact in an armchair general situation. How IS the chair there general??

I'm not advocating pursuits for all situation. I have just pointed out that TV experience hardly covers the situation and that there are other things to consider.

Finally again as to your testosterone premise. There were many things that caused my adrenaline to rise in the job. Does that mean that I should not have performed those functions? Does that mean those functions were or are inherently bad for the public?

I also noted in your posts that you didn't bother to place any blame for the chase or consequences on the part of the person who fled. I wonder why that is. Fortunately the SC sees it differently.


Quote
Originally posted by rpm
Well at least we agree...
 
How many pursuits as an officer... none

How many Pursuits as a suspect... 1 (got away, too)

How many pursuits witnessed on video... hundreds

Mav you aren't going to tell me that it is not an adrenaline rush to be part of a pursuit and adrenaline does not cloud judgement are you? I believe there have been several studies that came to that conclusion. That's what is behind the re-evaluation of pursuit policies around the country.

If it's a minor violation the pursuit thru heavy traffic or a residential area may create a greater public safety hazard than the violation itself. If air is available it is a much safer way to track the suspects while possibly defusing the situation and the public safety hazard. That's the purpose of police, to protect public safety, correct? Like the surgeon's code "first, do no harm". Killing an innocent bystander over a misdemeaner violation just isn't in the interest of justice or public safety.

Now if the guy has just killed 3 people in an armed robbery or raped an old lady and beat her, it is a much greater violation than driving off without paying for $20 of gas or running a stop sign. In that situation, a pursuit would be justified. It's not a totally one way or the other thing.

Once you have the tag, you have the owner and can easily find them. Or just mail them a ticket and suspend their license. You can run, but in today's society you can't hide for very long. As I stated previously, I have no problem with the SC ruling.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2007, 10:03:03 AM by Maverick »
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Airscrew

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4808
SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect
« Reply #32 on: May 01, 2007, 10:21:08 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
As for getting the "tag" is concerned there is something you should understand. First there is no way to determine if that plate belongs to the vehicle unless it is stopped. Secondly the entire vehicle may have been stolen or jacked. Third, the plate does not respond to a summons or indictment, neither does the car. That's because you must have the driver identified and then taken before a court. To date the vehicles and "tags" have refused to cooperate and identify who was actually operating the vehicle at the time. Their refusal to testify under oath makes it pretty silly to assume that having the tag means you have a prosecution of a driver for the offense in question.

This was pretty much what I was thinkin yesterday on the $20 worth of gas drive off.   the car could have been stolen, or the plates stolen.  And even if the car or the plates werent stolen, now you have to prove the owner of the car was the one that stole the gas.

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect
« Reply #33 on: May 01, 2007, 10:30:56 AM »
in my city some years ago there was a high speed pursuit, the cop car hit a civilian car head on, people were killed, the city was sued for a very large amount of money, that was the end of high speed pursuits in that city.

just the facts mam.

Offline LTARokit

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 317
SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect
« Reply #34 on: May 01, 2007, 11:01:31 AM »
Well stated Mav.......Salute Bro.

Fortunitly our pursuit policy wasn't AS restricked as many larger city agencies.  However, ya dang skippy, you needed to use common sense and terminate chases when needed.

The $20 dollar drive off.  Ya get behind em, vehicle matches up, can't yet see the plate, all descriptures match though, ya call it in......rolling location.......reach down turn your lights on........&............BOOM, driver nails it..............   Yea say "Just Call In The Plate & Be Done",  DURING A HIGH SPEED PURSUIT!?!?  Have you lost your mind, or what.  Some or the thing to be concerned with during pursuit driving:  Watching the vehicle being pursued by you, looking in front of vehcle, on coming traffic, side road traffic, rear traffic, watch for anything to be thrown out of suspect vehicle (drugs, weapons, etc.), making sure camera stays on target, all while holding microphone in right hand contiuosly updating and communicating with your dispatchers.................. ........................and you want me to break all that concentration and focus on some LITTLE rectangular square on the back of the vehicle...................

You see one of the things I don't like about the TV versions is that it shows............well that kind of says it all.............It's all SHOW.  The officer is representing an agency that's being viewed by MILLIONS.  What it doesn't show is.............using the above example............What's going through my mind:

(and this is what has run through my mind before).........Surely this driver isn't committing a Felony over a $20. bill.  Aww hell what do I have?

So from calling in a simple misdemeanor theft stop, your now on the radio advising dispatch of pursuit in progress.  It has now gone over the air, and responses are coming in, the channel gets cleared for your traffic only until the pursuit ends, or is terminated by me.

Bottom line though is ya just can't assume the chase is over a $20 bill, assumptions is what gets you killed when working the streets.

Bragging rights...............yea, maybe a day or 2 later, hell I'm human too.  Right after the chase, no.......generally I was always too pizzed off at the driver for endangering Me, Others, and the him/her - self (in that order).  Still stands, never at a DONUT SHOP (:mad: )

Ya know, one way to educate yourself in what REALLY goes on inside that patrol car is to sign up for a few nights as a Ride Along.  Most agencies allow civilians to ride with an Officer for a shift, or even partial shift.  Do a few nights and you get a clearer idea of what goes into the FULL picture.


Offline Vudak

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4819
SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect
« Reply #35 on: May 01, 2007, 01:05:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by LTARokit

Ya know, one way to educate yourself in what REALLY goes on inside that patrol car is to sign up for a few nights as a Ride Along.  Most agencies allow civilians to ride with an Officer for a shift, or even partial shift.  Do a few nights and you get a clearer idea of what goes into the FULL picture.


:rofl

Oh, man, next time I run into one of my buddies, I'll ask them how to do that.  Nice knowing you fellas :D
Vudak
352nd Fighter Group

Offline rpm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15661
SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect
« Reply #36 on: May 01, 2007, 01:40:40 PM »
Wait a sec, you mean it's perfectly reasonable to mail a ticket to a driver going 100+ MPH if he's just speeding or blew thru a red light, but if he took $20 in gas you have to pursue?

The speedcam and stoplightcam are all the rage now. You mean they are just a waste of tax money? You guys are acting like I don't want ANY pursuits at all. Nice way to twist my words and ignore what I have said.

Read this real slow and see if it sinks in...

When air cover is available, ground units can fall back and lower the risk to the public while the air unit follows the suspect. Does that make sense or are the aircraft just there to take snazzy FLIR pics of the ground units whizzing thru traffic for the next episode of America's Wildest Police Chases?

Use some common sense, that's all I'm saying.

Rokit and Mav, don't get me wrong. I respect the law and the officers that enforce it. Running from that cop was probaly one of the dumbest things I did as a kid. But it was not uncommon on a west texas highway back in the day.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2007, 03:20:00 PM by rpm »
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Stay thirsty my friends.

Offline LTARokit

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 317
SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect
« Reply #37 on: May 01, 2007, 11:06:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rpm
But it was not uncommon on a west texas highway back in the day.


LOL RPM no harm bro.................regarding quote.............the big Texas is where I spent 20 years as LE.  (not west though......there ain't nothin out there :confused: )



Trivia Question:    Everyone seems at ease using the term "Cop", it's an abreviation, just like .....Conduct "Cap" over base......  What does COP stand for?


Offline sgt203

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 516
SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect
« Reply #38 on: May 02, 2007, 02:47:00 AM »
Citizens On Patrol.....

At least that was the name of one of those police academy movies:aok :rofl

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect
« Reply #39 on: May 02, 2007, 05:45:07 AM »
Quote
Trivia Question: Everyone seems at ease using the term "Cop", it's an abreviation, just like .....Conduct "Cap" over base...... What does COP stand for?
Probably comes from the British slang  'copper' which raises the question where did word copper come from?

Where did the word 'fuzz' come from?

Offline Mickey1992

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3362
SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect
« Reply #40 on: May 02, 2007, 07:45:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by LTARokit
Trivia Question:    Everyone seems at ease using the term "Cop", it's an abreviation, just like .....Conduct "Cap" over base......  What does COP stand for?


Constable On Patrol

Offline bj229r

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6735
SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect
« Reply #41 on: May 02, 2007, 08:05:43 AM »
Used to live in Tampa before I moved to a shack in the country , bought a buncha guns and canned goods....Stupid woman was elected mayor, and the first thing she did was to disallow ALL hi-speed pursuits (after 3-4 dumb-arse kids got themselves kilt--commie-lib Tribune of course blamed the cops)--after a couple years, the SAME stupid mayor had to rescind the rule, as EVERYone was by now running from the cops, as they knew they would turn off the bubble lights and retreat to Krispy Kreme
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers

http://www.flamewarriors.net/forum/

Offline LTARokit

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 317
SC says NO to injured, fleeing suspect
« Reply #42 on: May 02, 2007, 10:24:25 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Constable On Patrol


We have a winner :)