Police Chases

[Meshavrischika]

How far should they go? What is your belief on what the cut off line should be for the cops to stop chasing a suspect for fear of loss of innocent life? What should happen to the officer or suspect if someone is hurt? (I know that at least here the suspect is charged with the injury)

I know I'm supposed to have an opinion on this, but all I can say is that there are some times it doesn't seem worth it to me for them to chase but I'm not knowledgable enough on police procedure and ideation to have a firm limit on it.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

I'm pretty sure police chases CAUSE more harm than they avoid. Especially if there's a child in the suspect's car, I believe setting up a police line would be more effective.

 

[angelpie545]

I'm pretty sure police chases CAUSE more harm than they avoid. Especially if there's a child in the suspect's car, I believe setting up a police line would be more effective.

I agree.

 

[armyman_83]

Maybe we should have a "You run you die" policy...I mean think about it--If you knew the cops where going to peper your car with bullets if you tried to run, even for anything, how many high speed chases would there be?

This is a very broad idea of course...

 

[lawtonfogle]

Maybe we should have a "You run you die" policy...I mean think about it--If you knew the cops where going to peper your car with bullets if you tried to run, even for anything, how many high speed chases would there be?

This is a very broad idea of course...

Hmm... So where could I take this....

If you are caught stealing, you die.
If you are caught trespassing, you die.
If you are caught vandalizing, you die.
If you are caught violating a law, you die.

I think there may be a problem with using the deterrence effect in the strongest sense.

 

[The Nihilist]

Can you guys imagine what would happen if it suddenly became police policy not to engage in car chases? Any jerk with two braincells to rub together who's about to get pulled over is just going to speed up until the office gives up. Policing would basically be over.

 

[Mling]

Hmm... So where could I take this....

If you are caught stealing, you die.
If you are caught trespassing, you die.
If you are caught vandalizing, you die.
If you are caught violating a law, you die.

I think there may be a problem with using the deterrence effect in the strongest sense.

The general effect is that it provides extra incentive to murder. If you are caught stealing, you die. Fine, so mug a random person you have no connection to, then kill them so they can't identify you.

If you run, you die...but not if you can kill the cops first.

 

[True_Blue]

Hmm... So where could I take this....

If you are caught stealing, you die.
If you are caught trespassing, you die.
If you are caught vandalizing, you die.
If you are caught violating a law, you die.

I think there may be a problem with using the deterrence effect in the strongest sense.

The crime of running from police is a deep disrespect for the magistrates. Contempt of court was a death penalty offense in the Bible. If a person who flees from police, they should expect nothing other than to get shot in the back.

With respect to stealing, vandalizing, trespassing, etc, we as a society get to decide how much of such behavior we want to tolerate by toggling the severity of sentences. Apparently, we're willing to tolerate quite a lot of crime.

 

[lawtonfogle]

The crime of running from police is a deep disrespect for the magistrates. Contempt of court was a death penalty offense in the Bible. If a person who flees from police, they should expect nothing other than to get shot in the back.

With respect to stealing, vandalizing, trespassing, etc, we as a society get to decide how much of such behavior we want to tolerate by toggling the severity of sentences. Apparently, we're willing to tolerate quite a lot of crime.

Assuming I agree with everything you say, you forget there is one situation where it is legal to move away from a police who wants you to pull over. If ever you don't think it is safe where you are, you are allowed to go to a public, well lit (if it is night), populated place. So just 'fleeing' won't be enough to justify punishment. Granted if they began to speed away at high speeds, you can assume they are not trying to do the above mentioned legal act, but there are three others problem. A. It is an assumption, one day you may be wrong. B. You punish everyone in the car, including possible children or innocent passengers or even hostages (in the case a recently hijacked vehicle). C. You throw innocent till proven guilt and you promote the police to the place of the judge, jury, and executioner, and I am not one to give that much power to other people (willing at least). Yes the police are there to help us, but that doesn't mean there aren't those who will abuse their power.

 

[True_Blue]

Assuming I agree with everything you say, you forget there is one situation where it is legal to move away from a police who wants you to pull over. If ever you don't think it is safe where you are, you are allowed to go to a public, well lit (if it is night), populated place. So just 'fleeing' won't be enough to justify punishment. Granted if they began to speed away at high speeds, you can assume they are not trying to do the above mentioned legal act, but there are three others problem. A. It is an assumption, one day you may be wrong. B. You punish everyone in the car, including possible children or innocent passengers or even hostages (in the case a recently hijacked vehicle). C. You throw innocent till proven guilt and you promote the police to the place of the judge, jury, and executioner, and I am not one to give that much power to other people (willing at least). Yes the police are there to help us, but that doesn't mean there aren't those who will abuse their power.

These are all very good points, and I agree with everything you say. For the reasons you state, it's impracticable to give police the power to shot to kill people in autos who are fleeing. While a moral argument can be made for such a policy, I agree it would be bad public policy.

 

[armyman_83]

The general effect is that it provides extra incentive to murder. If you are caught stealing, you die. Fine, so mug a random person you have no connection to, then kill them so they can't identify you.

If you run, you die...but not if you can kill the cops first.

Ah This is where the idea of concealed carry comes into play....But I do understand where you are coming from.

 

[The Nihilist]

These are all very good points, and I agree with everything you say. For the reasons you state, it's impracticable to give police the power to shot to kill people in autos who are fleeing. While a moral argument can be made for such a policy, I agree it would be bad public policy.

No moral argument can be made to that effect, and that you think it can speaks volumes on the poor nature of your character. Life should never be taken casually.